Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir CHARLES MACANDREW, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Old-Age Pensioners

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as old-age pensioners have received no direct financial benefit from his Budget, he will include in the draft Finance Bill provisions abolishing the charge on prescriptions.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derek Heathcoat Amory): No, Sir. If old-age pensioners are in need, and satisfy the conditions for assistance the prescription charge can already be refunded to them.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had letters from many old-age pensioners in Coventry, one of which says:
Failing health is attendant upon old age and therefore prescriptions are a heavy toll upon our meagre budget. Surely 2d. off beer is no help for the sick and aged.
Is the Chancellor further aware that old people on National Assistance find it very difficult to satisfy the requirements for a refund, and would he not look at the matter again?.

Mr. Amory: If there is any administrative difficulty, I am sure that if the hon. Lady puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health he will give her the information she requires.

Mr. H. Wilson: But is not the Chancellor aware that these vicious charges

were imposed by the present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was facing, as he said, a very serious economic crisis? Since we are supposed to be more prosperous now, ought not these charges and impositions to be the first to be removed? Is the right hon. Gentleman not further aware that this operates very unfairly as between different types of sick people, as some degrees of chronic illness require far more prescriptions per month than do others?.

Mr. Amory: I am sure, again, that any question about the details of the charge should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health..

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as old-age pensioners have received no direct financial benefit from his Budget, he will include in the draft Finance Bill provisions reducing for them the cost of a radio and television licence.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. This would not be practicable, nor has selective relief from indirect taxation been found a satisfactory way of relieving hardship.

Miss Burton: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that it would cost £26 million in a full financial year to give the old-age pensioners another 2s. a week? Would it not be correct to state that he could do that, abolish prescription charges and reduce the cost of television and radio licences for the same amount as he conceded on beer, namely, £36 million?

Mr. Amory: No doubt all the items to which the hon. Lady has referred will be mentioned in our discussions on the Finance Bill.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that old-age pensioners are obliged to him for abolishing the Purchase Tax on replacement tubes for their television sets?

Mr. H. Wilson: And is not the Chancellor further aware that we moved an Amendment to last year's Finance Bill to do just that but that he and his hon. and gallant Friend voted against it?

Mr. Amory: What is possible in some circumstances is not necessarily possible in others.

Standard of Living

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made since 1954 towards doubling the standard of living by 1979.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual percentage increase in industrial production, from 1954, which was necessary to reach the Government's target of doubling the standard of living by 1979, the cumulative percentage increase required from 1954 to 1959, and the actual percentage increase achieved from 1954 to the latest available date.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made since 1954 towards doubling the standard of living by 1979.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made since 1954 towards doubling the standard of living by 1979

Mr. Amory: Between 1954 and 1958 industrial production per head has risen by an average of 1·1 per cent. per annum. I cannot compute what percentage increase of industrial production would be necessary to reach the target of doubling the standard of living in 25 years, as there are other factors involved.
The average annual increase in consumption per head over the four year period has been 1·8 per cent.
Probably the best statistical definition of the standard of living is the level of real personal disposable income per head. Between 1954 and 1958 this has risen by 2·7 per cent. per annum, which is very nearly at the level of 2·8 per cent. per annum which would be required as an average to produce a doubling in 25 years. The difference between this figure of 2·7 per cent. and the 1·8 per cent. for consumption is accounted for by the very large increase in personal saving which took place between 1954 and 1958.
Over this short period, on these facts I would regard progress to date as reasonably satisfactory, particularly as national investment has been running at very high levels.

Captain Pilkington: Although I suppose it possible that a few Socialist speakers may try to "crab" the progress made, is my right hon. Friend aware that he should be warmly congratulated on both sides of the House? He has not, however, made any reference to the increase in such amenities as television and motor cars. Will he say something about those?

Mr. Amory: I have not the figures with me, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a Question I will certainly be glad to give him the information. It would, I think, reflect a steady increase in the standard of living.

Mr. Wilson: Even if the Chancellor cannot find anyone to do his sums for him, have not statisticians generally agreed that an increase in industrial production of something rather less than 3 per cent. compound is required to achieve this particular target? Is not the figure of 1·1 per cent., as a result of the virtual stagnation for the last three years, a very disappointing contribution towards the target to which the right hon. Gentleman refers? Further, would he not accept that in his figures of disposable income per head there has been this very remarkable windfall gain in terms of trade which he or any other Chancellor cannot count on year after year?

Mr. Amory: I am here dealing with facts, and the facts which I have given show quite conclusively that the standard of living, measured by what is the best measure of the standard of living—and the right hon. Gentleman will find it extremely difficult to quarrel with it—real personal disposable income, has risen by 2·7 per cent. on the average each year over this period.

Mr. Jay: As the Chancellor is dealing with facts, if the alleged extra income has not come from more production, will he tell us from where it has come?

Mr. Amory: It has arisen in a great number of ways. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that information now. As he knows, a host of things come into the assessment of the standard of living. This is a measurement of what is the final result when all the factors have been taken into account.

Mr. Hynd: As the Board of Trade Index of Food Prices has risen from 232 to 275 since 1954, is it more more likely that if the Government should unfortunately remain in office it will be the cost of living that will have doubled by 1974?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that any hon. Gentleman opposite would be very wise in raising questions affecting the cost of living.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if hon. Members opposite were in power and had their way they would so inflate the economy that they would run us into a balance of payments crisis?

Mr. Amory: I think that that consequence would be quite unavoidable.

Mr. Jay: Can the Chancellor give us one other source from which this income has come other than increased production?

Mr. Amory: One is additional production other than industrial production.

Companies (Political Advertisements)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent in company accounts submitted to the Inland Revenue for the year ended October, 1958, anti-Labour or anti-nationalisation advertisements have been stated separately from other expenditure.

Mr. Amory: This information is not available.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the steel companies started their campaign in January, 1958, yet the Economic Secretary told me in February that no claims had yet been made? The Chancellor says that no information is available. Has this expenditure been separately stated or not? If not, does it not mean that the Income Tax authorities are being deliberately deceitful?

Mr. Amory: This matter has been very well explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary on a number of occasions. This kind of information is not centralised at the headquarters of the Inland Revenue, but my hon. and learned Friend has explained very carefully that the taxpayer makes

his return of income and the inspector makes such inquiries and asks such questions as are relevant. That is the practice which will be and is being carried out in the kind of case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Is it not correct that this information is not imparted to shareholders at all? Will the Chancellor consider an amendment of the Companies Act to require information of this kind to be given to them, because the present position is that they have no opportunity of either contracting in or contracting out of what is in fact a political levy?

Mr. Amory: If the shareholders are dissatisfied or feel that they are not receiving as much information as they should, the remedy is in their hands.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: They know they are not receiving it.

Mr. Amory: If they feel that they would like some more information they can ask their management to provide it.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there is current evasion by the device of setting off expenditure on advertising campaigns attacking public ownership of the Inland Revenue Department's ruling that chargeable expenditure must be wholly for the purposes of a company's trade; and what steps he is taking to prevent such evasion.

Mr. Amory: I know of nothing which would support the hon. Member's allegation, but inquiries as to such expenditure would be made in suitable cases.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Chancellor aware that the Road Haulage Association has stated that £100,000 is being spent on such a campaign and that it will be deducted from company profits? Is it not intolerable that the Government will not tell Parliament or the people whether this is allowable or not?

Mr. Amory: The Government will not provide that information because it is not the job of the Government to do so. I again tell the hon. Member that I can rely on the inspectors of the Inland Revenue to make all proper inquiries in all relevant cases.

Purchase Tax

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue is obtained by the Purchase Tax on deep sea fishermen's protective clothing.

Mr. Amory: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's Department analyse the Purchase Tax receipts? Otherwise, how does he know whether a particular Purchase Tax is remunerative or not? May it not be that the cost of collecting the Purchase Tax on deep sea fishermen's oilskins and sea boots is far greater than the revenue which the right hon. Gentleman receives from the tax? Will he not consider abolishing this Purchase Tax?

Mr. Amory: I could not possibly carry out the kind of analysis which the hon. Gentleman has indicated. A vast staff would be required.

National Savings Certificates

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the tenth issue of National Savings Certificates, maximum holding 1,000 certificates, face value £750, was initiated; how many net have been bought; and in what total value.

Mr. Amory: The tenth issue of National Savings certificates was introduced on 1st August, 1956, with a maximum holding of 600 units costing £450. This was increased to 1,000 units costing £750 on 1st May, 1958. Total sales up to the end of April, 1958, were £518 million, or 691 million units, and a further £361 million, or 481 million units, have been sold since 1st May last. I cannot give figures of net sales of this issue, since the figures of repayments do not distinguish between the various issues. Total repayments of all issues over the period were £665 million.

Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the substantial tax reliefs which he announced a couple of weeks ago were made possible largely by the phenomenal record of the National Savings Movement? As so many people today already hold the maximum number of certificates permissible under the tenth issue, will he consider either an extension of the maximum number of

certificates or an eleventh issue on appropriate terms at an early date?

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution which the National Savings Movement has made to strengthening the economy. I would like to say how greatly I rely on their efforts in the future to continue to make a useful contribution to our national resources. I am grateful for the views which my hon. Friend has expressed.
In answer to my hon. Friend's second point, I have the question of the ceiling as well as the terms of National Savings issues continually under consideration.

Foreign Travel Allowance

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations now require the foreign travel allowance to be maintained at £100 per adult person per annum; when this figure was introduced; and whether he will raise it to £250 per adult person in good time for summer holidays oversea.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the improved balance of payments position, he will consider doubling the basic foreign travel allowance to all countries except the dollar area.

Mr. Amory: The basic travel allowance has been £100 a year since November, 1954, for travel to non-dollar countries, and since June, 1957, for travel to the dollar area. I am keeping the question of an increase in this allowance under review, but I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Nabarro: While recognising that in the overwhelming majority of cases £100 per head per annum is adequate, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that British travellers overseas suffer considerable indignity as a result of these restrictions compared with, for example, a West German who has no restrictions upon him, whether he travels as a businessman or otherwise? As it is damaging to national reputation and trade that the West German should be in a better position than ourselves, will not my right hon. Friend consider the matter from that point of view?

Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend is exaggerating, if he will permit me to


say so. I cannot think that British travellers are suffering anything that could be reasonably described as an indignity.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if the basic travel allowance were increased there would probably be fewer demands on his Department for the businessman's allowance?

Mr. Amory: I will bear that relevant point in mind, but there are a number of other commitments which I must bear in mind at the same time.

Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only a very small, privileged handful of people can afford holidays abroad at the rate of £250 per person?

Mr. Amory: I will bear that point in mind, also, among other things.

Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) making an unfair imputation against businessmen when he suggests that they go on holidays disguised as business trips?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that that was what my hon. Friend meant to indicate.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the Scandinavian travel allowance is still maintained at £250 per adult person per annum compared with £100 elsewhere, oversea; what were the origins of this contradistinction; and if he will now give to British travellers oversea. to other countries using dead-soft foreign currencies, treatment similar to that given to travellers to countries using the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish kroner, respectively.

Mr. Amory: The Uniscan Declaration of January. 1950, provided for the removal of restrictions on current payments between the four countries concerned, and this provision involves virtual freedom for travel expenditure. I do not know what my hon. Friend means by other countries using dead soft foreign currencies"

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry if my right hon. Friend has not followed the purport of the Question. but would he not agree that this special dispensation for Scanclinavian currencies was made because

they were at the time "dead-soft"? As today there are many European currencies which are as soft, if not softer, including the Italian lire, the Spanish peseta and the Portuguese escudo, would not my right hon. Friend end the contradistinction referred to in this Question and give £250 to anyone to travel anywhere in Europe?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that the logic of my hon. Friend is impeccable in this case. I think that the conception of hard and soft currencies is now largely outdated.

Mr. Nabarro: Then we ought to scrap it.

Mr. Amory: I shall not say whether they are all soft or all hard, but the distinction to draw between the two is not so easy as that.

Mr. Chetwynd: Give the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) his allowance and let him go.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of applicants for foreign travel basic allowances do not apply for the full amount of £100 to which they are entitled.

Mr. Amory: I regret that this figure is not available.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If, as I am informed, a great number of people apply for very much less than £100, would that not lend additional point to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) for increasing the amount for those who need more?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I think that it would be a relevant factor in considering the matter.

European Free Trade Area and Common Market

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the publicly expressed statement by the Federal German Minister of Economics that the British proposals for a Free Trade area are right, he will indicate what steps Her Majesty's Government are now proposing to take to reopen negotiations with the Common Market nations.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I cannot usefully add to the answers which I gave the right hon. Member on 26th March.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the attention of the Paymaster-General been called to the remarks, reported in The Times, of Professor Erhard that we should have the courage to go into the problem of the Free Trade Area whether today or tomorrow? Does not that seem to be an invitation from a leading member of the German Federal Government and should not Her Majesty's Government take this offer up?

Mr. Maudling: Professor Erhard always had a clear point of view on these matters, and I think that it is important he should discuss them with his colleagues in The Six in the first instance.

Below the Line Expenditure

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the expression, "below the line expenditure," was first used by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Budget statement; and to what extent the categories of expenditure so described have since changed.

Mr. Amory: Returns of Government expenditure, above and below the line, have been laid before Parliament for the past 100 years or more and I am unable to answer the first part of the Question without more research than it would be reasonable to undertake.
For details of the various types of expenditure involved, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to figures published in Financial Statements and summarised in convenient form in successive Abstracts of Statistics.

Entertainments Duty

Mr. Hayman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the cinema industry about his refusal to reduce, or abolish this year, Entertainments Duty affecting cinemas outside the large cities.

Mr. Amory: I have received a number of telegrams and letters, most of which, however, refer to cinemas generally.

Mr. Hayman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gem Cinema, in Redruth, is to be closed at the end of this month because of his Budget? Does he not think it unjust and inequitable that a tax and levy amounting to about 20 per cent. of gross receipts should be levied on this industry? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Amory: I did not know of the case the hon. Member has raised, but I reduced this tax very substantially in the Budget last year. It may be that this matter will arise in our discussions on the Finance Bill.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Chancellor aware that it is not only "may be" but that certainly, subject to the discretion of the Chair, we shall seek to move a new Clause to abolish Entertainments Duty on cinemas?

Company Shares (Foreign Purchase)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total dollar receipts accruing over the past six months in respect of United States purchases of the equity, or a substantial proportion of the equity, in United Kingdom firms, or by the sale to United States investors of British owned United States concerns, distinguishing the amounts received in security sterling and in dealings across the exchanges, respectively.

Mr. Amory: We do not, of course, have details of all purchases through the Stock Exchanges, but if, as I imagine, the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the big cases which have come to public notice, the total dollar receipts over the last six months are about £15 million. This was received across the exchanges.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this figure is somewhat smaller than that quoted last week in the City columns of The Times, although that may be on a different basis? Is he aware that we are concerned not so much with the total value of the exchanges as with the fact that some important British firms are passing into American control?

Mr. Amory: The difference, as the right hon. Member can imagine, probably arises mainly from the fact that a great deal of these payments have been made through the security sterling market, which, of course, does not involve a receipt in dollars.

Mr. Wilson: Does that mean that the Chancellor does not necessarily quarrel with the estimate published in the financial papers and that about £100 million in dollar exchanges is probably about right?

Mr. Amory: It is extremely difficult to estimate what will have been done through the security market, but if the right hon. Member cares to put down a Question I shall give the best information I can.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of firms in respect of whom more than one third of the equity has been sold or otherwise transferred to foreign owners during the past six months, the total value of such transactions, and the number of firms resident overseas in respect of which more than one third of the equity has been so transferred.

Mr. Amory: This information is not available because we do not have details of Stock Exchange transactions.

Mr. Wilson: While we recognise that to dispose of important British firms to American concerns is fully in accordance with the Trinidad tradition established by the Prime Minister, is the Chancellor aware of the very deep concern about the fact that this practice appears to be growing in this country? Is he equally aware of the concern felt, at any rate on this side of the House, at the rather flippant way in which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury seemed to suggest that there was no cause for alarm or action by the Government?

Mr. Amory: I certainly do not think that there is any cause for alarm or action on account of anything that has happened to date. It is very much in the interests of this country that there should be as free a flow of capital as possible both ways. We ourselves want to take advantage of opportunities to invest in other countries. That being so, it would be wholly wrong on our part to deny reasonable facilities for investment on the part of foreign countries in this country.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Chancellor aware that at an industrial conference in Coventry on Saturday the workers expressed great alarm and anxiety lest control of policy should pass from Westminster and Coventry to Wall Street and Detroit in view of the impending take-over bid for the Standard Tractor Works? Can the right hon. Gentleman give some guarantee that when he authorises such transactions he takes account of public policy, with particular

regard to the employment of the workers concerned who, as one in Coventry said, cannot be taken over like 3,000 cattle?

Mr. Amory: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that whenever a particular application comes in under the Exchange Control Act all relevant considerations affecting the national interest are taken into consideration. To get the matter into perspective, I should remind hon. Members that the amount of net investment we have made abroad enormously exceeds any net foreign investment made in this country over recent years. Even taking North America alone, I should say that the amount of new investment the United Kingdom has made in the United States and Canada together is probably equal to the total of new North American investment in this country.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Chancellor say why members of his party making propaganda speeches throughout the country attacking the Labour Party proposals to invest British capital in British firms make no protest at all about investment by Americans in this way?

Mr. Amory: I could not for a minute accept what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Jay: Is it the view of the Tory Party that it is better that the shares of British firms should be held by foreign private interests than by the British Government?

Mr. Amory: That does not arise at all from what I have said.

British Timken Company (Shares)

Mr. Paget: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were his reasons for declining to authorise an exchange of the British shares in British Timken for United States shares but permitting the American company to make a cash offer for the British share holding.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he gave to the Bank of England before it ruled against United Kingdom shareholders being permitted to accept shares in the Timken Roller Bearing Company of Ohio, United States of America, in exchange for their holdings in British Timken Company; and for what reasons


British shareholders are thus debarred from participating in United States industrial prosperity.

Mr. Amory: When specific Exchange Control permission is given for the purchase by non-residents of shares in United Kingdom companies it is our policy to require a cash payment across the official exchange. On the other hand, we do not allow portfolio investment by residents in non-resident companies except through the use of switch dollars which are the proceeds of shares in foreign companies which were already held by residents in this country. An exchange of shares would have been contrary to both these requirements.

Mr. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about this matter, which, I can assure him, is causing very great anxiety? We have a takeover bid for a minority holding well above the Stock Exchange price in an industry which is very important to our exports as well as to local employment. Is there an intention to put British Timken into liquidation and make it an American subsidiary and, if so, can he do anything to stop that or prevent it, or have any control to see that this business operates as an English concern?

Mr. Amory: I think that this particular case has been considered on its merits and I can see no circumstances in which to interfere with what is proposed.

Tax Reliefs and Post-war Credits

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an approximate estimate as to the extent to which imports will increase and the balance of payments will be affected in the coming fiscal year as a consequence of the tax reliefs and repayments of postwar credits in his recent Budget.

Mr. Amory: It is approximately estimated that the tax reliefs and repayments of post-war credits proposed in the Budget might lead to an increase in imports of £60 to £70 million in the present fiscal year. The balance of payments would be affected but to a lesser extent, since the greater earnings of our overseas customers would enable them to buy more from us. Hence our exports and invisible earnings would also be

bigger than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least reassure the beneficiaries of his Budget that if this eventuates and there is a drain on sterling in the autumn, and if the Prime Minister still shows his present reluctance to go to the country, he will find some means of withdrawing their benefits?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman can rely on me to take all appropriate steps in any economic circumstances that may arise.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number and proportion of Income Tax payers pay Surtax; and what is the average amount of tax relief per head they receive from his Budget.

Mr. Amory: Three hundred and seventy thousand, or 2 per cent. of all Income Tax payers who get an average relief of £115.

Mr. Swingler: Does the Chancellor recall that last week the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told us that £40 million a year, or 24 per cent. of the reliefs in the right hon. Gentleman's Budget, went to Surtax payers? Can we therefore take it from his Answer now that it was his intention that the 2 per cent. who are the richest taxpayers in the country should have 24 per cent. of the reliefs in the Budget?

Mr. Amory: When the standard rate of tax is reduced the biggest actual reduction goes to those who pay the highest amount of tax, but the effects of the reductions which I have proposed will mean that Surtax payers as a whole will get a smaller proportionate reduction in their tax.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Income Tax relief given in this year's Budget to a man with an income of £750 a year, all earned, and to a man with the same income all unearned, respectively.

Mr. Amory: A single man will receive £12 2s. 6d. relief if his income is wholly earned and £18 7s. 6d. if it is wholly unearned. The comparable figures for a married man without children are £8 11s. 8d. and £14 12s. 6d., respectively.

Mr. Jay: Was it deliberately or unintentionally that the Chancellor throughout his Budget gave more relief to those with unearned income than to those with earned income?

Mr. Amory: It was the consequence of a decision to propose a reduction in the standard rate.

Mr. Jay: Is not that in itself a condemnation of reducing the standard rate without a simultaneous reduction in the earned and other personal allowances?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir, not at all. The fact is that those who pay more get the bigger total reductions, but they get a smaller proportionate reduction in their total tax.

Industrial Countries (Fiscal Policy)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to obtain some measure of international agreement between the major industrial countries to concert an expansionary fiscal policy.

Mr. Amory: Regular international consultation about the economic situation and outlook takes place in such organisations as the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. Commonwealth Ministers and civil servants also meet regularly for discussion of economic prospects and policies. There is general agreement that in the present phase it is desirable to foster expansion while remaining on guard against the recurrence of inflationary tendencies. Production is in fact on a rising trend in the major industrial countries.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that as he and his predecessors have almost completely dismantled our external financial defences it is now difficult for this country to go it alone with an expansionist monetary policy?

Mr. Amory: I would not agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I think that he must agree that we have always made clear our belief in economic interdependence and common action by all countries in the direction of strengthening and increasing world trade.

Royal Irish Constabulary (Pensions)

Captain Orr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his review of public service pensions, he will consider favourably the special case of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary, details of which have already been given to him by the hon. Member for South Belfast and others.

Mr. Amory: I am not sure what special point my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but I am expecting that my proposals will apply, as have previous Pensions Increase Acts, to the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Captain Orr: If I again send my right hon. Friend details of a special case which is a complicated and long-standing grievance of a very magnificent body of men, will he look at it again?

Mr. Amory: Will my hon. and gallant Friend, before he decides to whom to send it, consider whether it should go to the Home Secretary or to me? If he decides that it should come to me, then I will promise to consider it.

British Firms (Foreign Control)

Mr. Paget: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation requiring the consent of the Minister of Defence to any change of financial control in an industry vital to the defence of this country, which has the effect of shifting that control out of this country.

Mr. Amory: I do not think that it would be desirable to take the powers suggested by the hon. and learned Member, but I am satisfied that we should be able, if the need arose, to control industries vital to the defence of this country.

Mr. Paget: Could there be an industry which is more vital that the bearing industry of British Timken? The right hon. Gentleman has just told me that he can do nothing at all about it if there is a proposal to shut down that industry. Is that really consistent with his answer?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said is conclusive at all. Because the ball-bearing industry is important to this country, that does not mean that we


should prevent foreign investment in that industry. We have other means of controlling such industries if and when the need arises.

Mr. Paget: Surely the right hon. Gentleman told me, in answer to a supplementary question on an earlier Question, when I said that there might be a danger of this industry closing down, that if that happened he could do absolutely nothing about it and would not intend to do anything about it, but now he agrees that this is a vital industry to British defence and seems to give me a wholly inconsistent answer.

Mr. Amory: No. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really thinks this out I think he will find that that is far from being so. A particular unit in an industry can be closed down quite apart from any foreign ownership.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not time that the Chancellor himself thought this out?

Mr. Albu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many American industries are finding that they are pricing themselves out of world markets, and is it not a serious danger to competition that such take-overs of British industries might be used to prejudice the position by closing some of them down or reducing their production?

Mr. Amory: I would not have thought so. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to get this matter in perspective. If this kind of movement assumed what the Government considered was undesirable or dangerous proportions, a different situation might be created. There is nothing in what has happened to date to justify any feeling of alarm among the people of this country or anyone in industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not time that the Chancellor made a clear statement to the House about what powers he has in this matter instead of referring vaguely to other controls which he would use? Would he give the House, if not today, a considered statement as to what powers the Government have or would have or would use to prevent important defence or other industries passing out of the control of this country? Since he has told us that any control of purchases through the Stock Exchange is something not requiring Treasury permission, would

he tell us how he proposes to deal with this position?

Mr. Amory: Our powers in normal times are restricted to the powers under the Exchequer Control Act, but in emergency the Government would no doubt take special powers to deal with this and many other situations that arose.

Mr. Paget: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Snow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what companies with authorised capital of £1 million and over are at present known to his Department to be negotiating with United States interests for the sale of their financial control.

Mr. Amory: None, Sir.

Mr. Snow: That is not surprising, but is it not obvious evidence of lack of necessary information in the Treasury? Is it not a fact that when negotiations of this sort start the preliminary observations are normally passed to the Treasury, in which case why is that information not available?

Mr. Amory: The Treasury can only become aware of what is proposed when proposals are made. No proposals have been yet made.

Mr. Snow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper on the general subject of the purchase by United States interests of the financial control of United Kingdom public companies, with specific reference to the consideration and authorisations involving his Department consequential upon the loss of these financial controls.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. It is the policy of this Government to encourage overseas investment by our own residents both in the Commonwealth and, so far as we can afford it, in other countries. We also welcome investment in United Kingdom companies by non-residents. These closer relations are important to the welfare and prosperity of the world.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we do not entirely share his complacency and attitude that there should be equity between the United States and this country on the question


of capital transfers? Is he aware that one of the developing dangers of this encroachment on our financial control of industries in this country is that American controlled companies under the present practice arid the new tendencies in the transfer of capital can restrict exports from this country and our export trade is thereby jeopardised?

Mr. Amory: I very much doubt whether that has been the experience to date. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that inflow of capital of this kind increases proportionately our capacity to make fresh new net investments in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware, when he equates British investments overseas with American investments in this country, that ours are of a general kind whereas investment by the Americans is in strategic and key industries in this country? Is he not aware that by making that kind of investment the Americans get control of our industries, which is totally different from the widespread and benevolent investment that we make overseas?

Mr. Amory: Again, I think that the hon. Member will find that generally the spread of American investment in this country over the past ten years has been extremely wide and varied. As to the second part of his supplementary question, this is an important matter and the Government will, of course, keep the situation as it develops continuously under review.

Mr. Snow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the growing public disquiet at the way in which United States financial interests are securing control of important British public companies; and what companies, involving capital sums of £150,000 and over, have been authorised by his Department during the years 1952 to 1958 inclusive to sell to United States interests their financial control.

Mr. Amory: I do not think that there is any general disquiet, nor do I think there is cause for it. I regret that I could not provide the information for which the hon. Gentleman asked without quite disproportionate labour.

Mr. Snow: In view of what two leaders In The Times, which were followed up

in other newspapers, have said, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this causes some disquiet? Is he further aware that there are an estimated 30 American stockbrokers or their agents now operating in the City trying to spot industries which might be taken over? Is he not aware that we on this side of the House do not share the views of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite who, while Question No. 20 was being answered, said it was preferable that Americans should have control of certain of our industries rather than that the British Government should control them?

Mr. Amory: I will take note of what the hon. Member has said. I do not share his views about the undesirability of what has happened to date, but once again I would say that this important matter is one which the Government intend to keep continuously under review.

Mr. Jay: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that one has to distinguish between participation which in some cases may be desirable and control which arouses anxiety?

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir, at last I can agree with something that a right hon. Gentleman opposite has said. I agree that there is a distinction there. This is a matter which, of course, is kept in our minds when we consider on its merits each application under the Exchange Control Act.

Royal Opera House, Covent Garden

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the high proportion of the revenue of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. which is absorbed in repairs and maintenance charges; and whether the Government will accept direct responsibility for the building, and so relieve the Opera House of this burden.

Mr. Amory: I understand that under 5 per cent. of Covent Garden expenditure in 1959-60 is expected to be on repairs and maintenance charges. In answer to the second part of the Question, I think the Arts Council is the proper channel for any Government assistance to Covent Garden.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the Chancellor realize—and he ought to realize it because it is printed in the last report of the Royal Opera House—that from year to year the Opera House has to defer necessary repairs and maintenance work because it cannot afford to get them done? Is it not deplorable that the building should be allowed to fall into decay and shabby dilapidation when the Ministry of Works should be responsible for keeping what is a national institution in a proper state of repair?

Mr. Amory: My information is that no essential maintenance has been postponed.

Income Tax Returns (Forms)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a revised and simplified version of the four-page instructions at present issued to Income Tax payers on how to complete their annual returns.

Mr. Amory: A simplified two-page set of instructions is already in use with the return form sent to manual wage earners and to employees and pensioners earning less than £600 a year.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this four-page mass of microscopic print is sent to a very large number of Income Tax payers and that it contains as many words as the first twelve chapters of the Bible? Is it not time that we abolished this class distinction which apparently operates in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and had some simplified form for all classes of taxpayer?

Mr. Amory: I will admit that the higher the rate of taxable income the more pages of information I send. If this is discrimination in favour of the wealthy, I must apologise for it.

Consumers' Expenditure

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the increase in consumer expenditure of 1958 over that of 1957; how much of this increase is due to increased prices; and how much is necessitated by reduced contents of food and non-food commodities sold in tubes, packets, tins, boxes and other containers.

Mr. Amory: Consumers' expenditure increased by 5 per cent. between 1957 and 1958. One half of this increase is attributable to increases in prices. Changes in the contents of packaged goods are taken into account in calculating price changes, but their effect cannot be separately estimated.

Mrs. Mann: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method of compilation of the cost-of-living index figure is completely outmoded in this "pre-packed" age? Is he aware that this is an age when people know the price of everything and the value of nothing and that the stability of prices is now outmoded as a measuring rod of the cost of living? Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Hodgson proposal on weight or revise the compilation method?

Mr. Amory: Any question which the hon. Lady raises about weights and measures should be put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and any question about the improvement of the Index of Retail Prices should be referred to my right hon Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the real increase in consumption—the 2½ per cent. —was made possible by any increase in production and how much of it was at the expense of stocks?

Mr. Amory: I could not without notice, but if the right hon. Gentleman puts a Question to me I will give him the fullest information that I can.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rate)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure an increase in council house building this year, whether he will now reduce the Public Works Loan Board interest rate for housing loans to local authorities.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir.

Mr. Jay: As the right hon. Gentleman said himself last week that the Government wish council house building to expand, why does he maintain this 5¾ per cent. rate, which, to the smaller authorities, is a penal rate?

Mr. Amory: Because, as I have explained before, the interest rates of the Public Works Loan Board are related to the comparable rates in the market. While we are encouraging local authorities to raise as much of their needed capital as possible in the open market, it would be quite unfair to those authorities who did so if we offered lower rates through the Public Works Loan Board.

Mr. Jay: If the L.C.C. can borrow at 5⅓ per cent., how can the right hon. Gentleman expect the smaller authorities to believe that the Government can borrow only at 5¾ per cent.?

Mr. Amory: We try to keep the rates as closely in line as we can and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, whenever circumstances justify we change the Board's rate, but it would be wrong to do so on the results of one issue.

Bank Accounts, Switzerland

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many residents in the United Kingdom are operating no-name bank accounts in Switzerland; and what representations have been made to the Swiss authorities to end this system.

Mr. Amory: No information is available. Under the Exchange Control Act, 1947, residents are required, unless specially authorised, to surrender all specified currency; failure to do so renders them liable to prosecution. The question of representations does not arise; the banking practice referred to is entirely with in the domestic jurisdiction of the Government concerned.

Mr. Irving: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these no-name accounts are held in Swiss banks? Would he agree that if British nationals were engaged in this practice it would be a highly discreditable thing to do and something to be discouraged?

Mr. Amory: If their object was to avoid our exchange control restrictions, I would certainly say that it would be deplorable.

Arts Council

Mr. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide the Arts Council with sufficient resources

during the present financial year to enable it to increase the support it gives to the theatre.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary on 19th February.

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir, but is the Chancellor aware that the amount given by the Treasury to the Arts Council only enables it to provide less than £70,000 in support of the theatre in the whole of the British Isles, which is far less than any provincial cities in Europe get from public funds, and that this amount is inadequate to enable our rep companies m particular to function properly?

Mr. Amory: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have increased substantially the total grant to the Arts Council over the last two or three years, and in spite of the fact that a triennial grant was fixed last year I have increased the total grant again this year. The allocation of that total sum must be on the decision of the Arts Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Clearance Areas, Leeds

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that there has been long delay on the part of his Department in confirming the clearance areas after the proper public inquiry has been held in relation to the district of New Wortley, Leeds; and what steps he has taken to expedite matters.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Four compulsory orders and two clearance orders are involved, affecting a large area. They were the subject of public inquiry or hearing last December. I have confirmed two of the compulsory purchase orders and shall give my decision on the remaining four orders as soon as I can. But these raise legal or procedural points on which I am now waiting to hear from the Council.

Mr. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that within the City of Leeds it is considered that his Department takes a rather


leisurely view of these things? When can Leeds reasonably expect to have this matter cleared up, involving as it does a degree of slum clearance? Further, does he appreciate that the delay is very much to the disadvantage of the inhabitants?

Mr. Brooke: I must rebut that allegation, because I know that there have been previous occasions when my Department has gone to special trouble to help the Corporation by expediting matters. In this case there are two small legal points outstanding, and also the question of whether for part of the area there should be a clearance order rather than a compulsory purchase order. I am now waiting to hear from the Leeds City council on those matters.

Car Sales Premises

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, whether he will take steps to amend the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1950, so that planning permission will be required by anyone proposing to change the use of shops, &c., into premises for the sale of motor cars.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevies): My right hon. Friend knows that this matter is causing concern to certain local authorities, and he is watching the position; but he is not satisfied, on the information at present before him, that an amendment of the Order would be justified.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not reasonable that local authorities should be able to say yes or no to a change of this kind which can alter the character of a whole neighbourhood? Will the Minister take particular account of the difficulties that have arisen in the Romford Road area of Manor Park, which has been brought to his attention. and indeed similar difficulties in other parts of Metropolitan Essex? Will he look at this question?

Mr. Bevins: This is a problem in East London and in this part of Essex, but it is not a universal problem. We are examining the position in Ilford as a pilot effort and we shall then study the result.

Radioactive Waste (Disposal)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when the proposed conference with local authorities on the disposal of radioactive waste is expected to be held; what form the conference will take; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Brooke: I cannot yet add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 9th April.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister appreciate that since, as he himself has admitted, the present control is not adequate, this question is urgent, and as he promised consultation shortly when he wrote to the A.M.C. at the beginning of January, would he speed up the matter?

Mr. Brooke: The Government attach a great deal of importance to this matter, but there are questions of future legislation involved, and before we start our consultations with the local authority associations we want to have definite proposals to put before them.

Agricultural Land

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement of the estimated loss of agricultural land to all other purposes during the five-year period covered by the development plans on the basis of those plans and supplementary information.

Mr. Bevins: An analysis has been made of a large number of development plans. This shows that, at the time the plans were prepared, planning authorities in England and Wales thought that, roughly, some 500,000 acres more would be needed for purposes such as housing, industry, schools and open space. The plans cover 20-year periods, and the estimate cannot be broken down into shorter periods. Particulars of this analysis will be given in the Annual Report of the Department to be published next month.

Sir A. Hurd: Can my hon. Friend say whether the figure he has given us squares


with the figure provided in the Ministry of Agriculture return showing a loss of about 100,000 acres a year for the construction of houses, playing fields and so on? Would that be right?

Mr. Bevins: The 500,000 acres refers to a period of twenty years, so that the figure of 100,000 would be about right.

Private Street Works

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in view of the hardship suffered by many of those obliged to meet the cost of making up private streets under the Private Street Works Act, 1892, he will forthwith authorise and enable local authorities to issue interest-free or low interest loans to householders to assist them in meeting these charges.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. This is a complex subject and before considering changes my right hon. Friend must see what emerges from the survey he has instituted.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not now admitted by the Department that the law on this subject is obsolete and that a survey is being undertaken on the way in which citizens are hard hit? Is it not grossly unfair that citizens placed in this position should have to pay interest at the rate of 5¾ per cent. to meet these charges when they have to borrow the money, because they find it impossible to pay immediately. Surely something can be done about it.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that if loans which were interest free, or at an artificially low rate of interest, were offered to people who are liable for road charges, that would put a burden on millions of other people who had already discharged their liability to pay road charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Programmes

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what further assistance, other than by subsidy, he proposes to give to local authorities in order to enable them to increase their

house-building programmes, and so relieve the long waiting-lists for council houses.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the building of houses by local authorities has fallen from 257,000 in 1954 to 145,000 in 1958; what was the main cause of this reduction during a time when there has been a substantial unsatisfied demand for living accommodation; and what steps are now being taken, other than by subsidy, to encourage councils to increase the number of houses.

Mr. H. Brooke: Since 1951 more than 2 million new houses have been built in Great Britain at an average rate of some 300,000 a year. This high level has been made possible by the continued growth of private building for general housing needs. As a result, the housing situation in the country has been enormously improved. In these circumstances, though in many areas there is still a strong continuing demand for houses, it was to be expected that the total number needing to be provided by local authorities should decline. Nevertheless, they have continued to build on a substantial scale, and have been told by Circular 60/58 that I am prepared to approve the building of an increased number of houses by individual authorities during the current year.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that many big councils, such as Salford, are being forced by the increased interest rates and the removal of most types of housing subsidy to confine themselves solely to rehousing slum clearance tenants? Will he therefore consider enabling the Public Works Loan Board to reduce its interest rate below the market rate by a financial grant? If the Government really wanted to do it, they could do it.

Mr. Brooke: A question about rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board should be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my experience every authority can go on building because if it is not able to afford to build at reasonable rents by pooling its existing rents, then it has power to apply for a discretionary grant under the 1958 Act.

Mr. Awbery: Can the Minister now give us the explanation asked for in Question 55 as to why there was such a substantial reduction of 100,000 houses in one year?

Mr. Brooke: The answer is that there was never a reduction of 100,000 houses in one year.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of council houses being built now is little more than half what it was five years ago? Is he also aware that the total number of houses being built now has fallen? Is he also aware that his slum clearance programme has not been up to what the local authorities could have done by themselves?

Mr. Brooke: I find nothing in this Question about slum clearance but, of course, our total housing achievement far outweighs anything that the Opposition ever did.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has made regarding the documents officially communicated to him by the Federal German Chancellor concerning the need for an improvement in Anglo-German relations; and what action he proposes to take towards a better understanding of the common problems confronting the two countries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on my behalf to Questions on 14th April.

Mr. Yates: What answer has the Prime Minister got to the two charges made by Dr. Adenauer; first, that there was a systematic contrivance against Germany on the part of Britain; and, secondly, that the proposals for a frozen zone have never been put forward in other than a vague manner, in which they could never be discussed? Those are the words of Dr. Adenauer.

The Prime Minister: I am bound to say that I thought the exchanges which followed my right hon. Friend's answer

on my behalf were valuable and that contributions were made from different parts of the House, all of which helped, I thought, to put this matter in its true perspective. I have nothing to add to what was then said.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could the Prime Minister say, however, when Dr. Adenauer is expected to visit this country?

The Prime Minister: I am hoping that he will be able to come. He has suggested that he may be able to come fairly shortly.

TRADE DELEGATION TO U.S.S.R.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will make a statement about a trade delegation to the U.S.S.R.
After useful preliminary discussions with the Soviet Ambassador in London, Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Government of the U.S.S.R. that I should lead a small trade delegation to Moscow next month. The Soviet Government have welcomed this proposal. The delegation's purpose will be to negotiate an agreement affording increased scope for the trade between our two countries.
The composition of the mission is under consideration. I shall invite two or three businessmen of standing to join the delegation as advisers, particularly on Russian exports to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the despatch of this mission, which we have pressed on him, will be welcomed generally in the House and throughout British industry? Can he say what sort of increased scope of trade is hoped for, and, also, whether the mission will be confined to negotiating a trade agreement, or whether some of the unofficial members will proceed to the actual working out of business contracts?

Sir D. Eccles: It is impossible to say what the increase of trade may be, because that very largely depends on the arrangements we are able to make with the Russians to take up contracts which we know they already wish to place here. It is not a mission to get orders. It is a


mission to establish the right framework within which businessmen can act afterwards.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the heavy rate of unemployment in Scotland, will the Minister see that Scotland is strongly represented on this mission?

Sir D. Eccles: I do not think that any representatives on the mission will have any particular interests of that kind. They will merely be advisers on the general question of increasing the trade in both directions.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the mission have power to deal with the strategic list, and recommend any changes, where necessary?

Sir D. Eccles: No, the strategic list will not be under discussion.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question of extended credits will come under consideration?

Sir D. Eccles: The Russians have made no request for long-term credits. With regard to medium-term credits, I made some reference to them in the debate on the Budget.

Mr. H. Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he envisages the conclusion of a Government-to-Government trade agreement, or whether it is just an exploratory discussion? Can he also say whether the Soviet Union have raised with Her Majesty's Government the question of supplies of Russian oil to this country, and, if so, what answer the Government have made to that proposal?

Sir D. Eccles: Of course, we hope to make a trade agreement, which will not include bulk purchase from this side. It will include the facilities which will enable our people and the Russians to do more trade with each other. As I think the right hon. Gentleman heard me say in the Budget debate, we have told the Russians that we are not at present able to authorise the import of oil into this country.

Sir A. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it may be most useful to Russia and also to this country if any buying we do in Russia will be mainly of raw materials—I am thinking particularly of barley, potash or phosphates for

fertilisers and that kind of thing—rather than finished manufactured materials?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that the Russians have a traditional trade in coarse grains and we intend to discuss that with them. They also wish to have some opportunities to sell their finished goods. I think that if we are to sell a great many more finished goods there, we shall have to look at that.

Mr. Rankin: Is the President of the Board of Trade making it quite clear that this mission will be restricted in its discussions by the agreements which were reached last October by Cocom, at its meetings in Paris?

Sir D. Eccles: Certainly, the strategic list, which is agreed between 17 countries, governs the exports which are made from this country, and it is very clear that the Russians wish to have a very large range of goods which do not come under the strategic ban.

Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman take a rather wide view of the word "trade", and bear in mind, for example, shipbuilding? Is he aware that a number of Russian orders have just been given to Western Germany, while a number of such orders in Britain, in places like the Tyne, would be extremely useful at present?

Sir D. Eccles: I will keep that in mind.

Dr. Stross: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the Russians import consumer goods, for example, pottery from China, Czechoslovakia and Italy, and that in the past they got the very best pottery from Stoke-on-Trent? Will he bear in mind that this is available, and bring that fact to their notice?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree with the hon. Member that some of the dessert services sent from Stoke-on-Trent to Russia are among the best in the world. I will certainly keep that fact in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: How can the President of the Board of Trade go to Russia next month if there is to be a General Election?

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Co-operative movement in this country has had a longstanding trade agreement with the Soviet Union? Does he not therefore think that


it would be helpful if people who have conducted negotiations for a long period formed part of the delegation?

Sir D. Eccles: I really need advice about Russian exports to this country. There appear to be plenty of orders which the Russians wish to place here, and as they are organised as a state trading body I do not think the mission is quite the means by which to try to make contracts.

Mr. Zilliacus: In connection with the question of exports from the Soviet Union, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibilities of triangular trade through Comecon so that we can arrange with the Soviet Government for Soviet imports from here over a wide range, enabling us in exchange to receive more exports from the whole of this group of countries?

Sir D. Eccles: We are very ready to consider anything to increase trade between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.

Mr. Swingler: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider taking his colleague the Minister of Education with him in order to widen his knowledge of commerce?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX (REPAYMENT OF POST-WAR CREDITS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the repayment of post-war credits (including credits to building societies), it is expedient to authorise—

(a)the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for making payments under that Act (including payments of interest);
(b)the raising of money for the purpose of providing or replacing sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under that Act otherwise than in respect of interest;
(c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in any administrative expenses defrayed out of such moneys.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX (REPAYMENT OF POST-WAR CREDITS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(REPAYMENT OF POST-WAR CREDITS.)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, at the end to insert:
Provided that among the qualifications to be prescribed there shall be included the following, that is to say, that the applicant has been entitled during a continuous period of twenty-six weeks immediately before the date of his application and is entitled on that date to sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act, 1946, or to benefit in respect of disablement or of a prescribed disease or injury (being injury benefit or benefit assessed on a basis of one hundred per cent.) under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946.
This is a proposal to add a fourth category to the three mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as qualifying for the repayment of post-war credits. It proposes that holders of post-war credits who have been receiving sickness benefit under the National Insurance Scheme, or the corresponding benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, for a continuous period of 26 weeks, should be entitled to claim repayment of their post-war credits.
I realise that in moving the Amendment we are doing one of the things which the Chancellor asked us not do. In his Budget statement the Chancellor said:
I must ask hon. Members not to press me to extend these hardship concessions further this year. I am aware there are many other people who on grounds of degree of hardship may have claims as strong as those I have chosen.
I am sure that he would not wish us to overlook any really deserving category of persons who might share in the extended repayment of post-war credits now proposed. We have satisfied one of the conditions he laid down when, in the same speech, he said:
[would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that we can deal only with categories of hardship that can be defined readily and precisely."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1959; Vol. 603, c. 62.]
The category of persons referred to in the Amendment does satisfy that condition.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee agree that it would be wrong to ask the Inland Revenue to become the judge of degree of hardship. The Inland Revenue is the repayer of post-war credits and not the administrator of National Assistance, National Insurance, industrial injuries benefits, or the judge of marginal questions of hardship or entitlement. It is, therefore, necessary to give the Inland Revenue evidence, from an authoritative source, of the entitlement of a person to repayment of the credits under the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman will make.
We presume that in the case of those who have been continuously receiving National Assistance for 12 weeks, the National Assistance Board will be the authority to assure the Inland Revenue of entitlement on that ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) made the useful suggestion that the Assistance Board should hold a supply of forms of application for repayment of post-war credits and that, as soon as a person fulfilled the qualification of having received National Assistance for 12 continuous weeks, he should be asked whether he held post-war credits and, if so, given an application form. In the case of the category proposed by the Amendment that could be done by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
I do not say that the fourth group suggested in the Amendment should take precedence over the first three. We recognise that the first category proposed by the Chancellor, consisting of those who have been receiving National Assistance for a continuous period of 12 weeks, obviously consists of persons in need, otherwise they would not be receiving help from the Assistance Board. Moreover, not only are they in need, but they have been continuously in need for three months. In all those cases we could say that the people concerned are deserving of repayment of any money which the State still holds on their account, in postwar credits.
3.45 p.m.
The second category, consisting of the blind, has a special place in the sympathy of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and with the public generally, and we would not question for a moment the appropriateness of their inclusion in the Chancellor's three categories. The third category, consisting of those so badly disabled that they are in need of a constant attendance allowance, or are receiving unemployability supplement or corresponding benefits, are clearly a very deserving category. They are people who have been badly shattered, physically or mentally, in war, or as a result of a serious accident at work.
The category covered by the Amendment is one which we would place fourth, and not third or second in the list. Nevertheless, it is a deserving category, consisting of persons who have been in receipt of sickness benefit continuously for at least 26 weeks. Twenty-six weeks is a long time. We have purposely fixed a period as long as that to remove any suspicion that persons might find it expedient to remain on sick list benefit a little longer to qualify for repayment of their post-war credits. We cannot rule out the marginal risk that that might happen even under this proposal, but when a person has been receiving sickness benefit, or total disability benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, for six months, we can take it that he must be ill and that he has been seriously ill and will have had his resources considerably depleted as a consequence. We know that he will have been receiving the low sickness benefit under the scheme, and that his domestic


situation is bound to have deteriorated during that time.
We recognise that those who, on account of prolonged sickness, need to go to the Assistance Board for help, will, if they are continuously in receipt of National Assistance for 12 weeks, qualify as being in the first of the three categories proposed by the Chancellor. I find that roughly 12 per cent. of those receiving sickness and industrial injuries benefit need to apply for National Assistance. Roughly 118,000 persons in receipt of sickness benefit have their income supplemented in that way.
I cannot tell how many of those in receipt of sickness benefit for a continuous period of 26 weeks have not applied for and received National Assistance for a period as long as 12 weeks. From Table 34, on page 105 of the Report of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for 1957, it appears that the number of persons totally incapacitated by sickness, prescribed disease or industrial injury, month by month during 1957, was never less than 827,000 and, in the peak month of the influenza epidemic, in October of that year, rose to 1½ million. I do not know how many of those people will have been sick for a period of as long as 26 weeks. It may be that the Financial Secretary has made some inquiries which will enable him to help the Committee on that point.
I would say that the majority of sick absences are for a much shorter period than 26 weeks, and during the influenza epidemic of October, 1957, when sickness benefit claims rose to an all-time high, the absences were for only one or two weeks. In the more serious cases the absences would be longer than that, but a period of six months would be a long time. The numbers might not be as large as one would suppose, and the money involved in the repayment of post-war credits to those who woulud qualify under the Amendment would not embarrass the Chancellor. He referred to the other categories in which he was proposing to make a concession and said that information was scant, but that he thought the cost might be about £2 million a year.
The remaining factor, which the Chancellor has mentioned on several occasions, concerns the amount of work involved, and he has suggested that in

the next two or three months the Inland Revenue will have about as much to do in regard to post-war credits as it can manage. On 15th April, he said:
…the form in which the Bill is drawn makes it possible for further classes to be added by regulation if this is shown to be possible and desirable. It would, however, not be practicable to make any additions to the qualifying classes until after the mass of the new claims under these proposals have been dealt with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April. 1959; Vol. 603, c. 1040.]
I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee would not wish to be unreasonable. If the Chancellor could say that the fourth category we propose would be the next on his list, and that he would take advantage of the power to be given him under the Bill to bring that fourth category forward at an early date, we should probably not wish to be unduly critical. But we should first want to be satisfied that the numbers involved would add so substantially to the amount of work to be done that some postponement of their claim would be necessary and justified.
That is the case for the inclusion of this fourth category. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not make any difficulty about that category by telling us that the forms are already being printed. I do not know what the forms contain, but I imagine that they make some reference to those who are entitled to claim, and the categories will presumably be set out in accordance with the announcement already made by the Chancellor to this House. I suggest, however, that we cannot be hustled along quite like that. The right hon. Gentleman could have introduced an enabling Bill on post-war credits at any time during the last twelve months. He has not been forced into this position by circumstances over which he had no control.
The right hon. Gentleman was, naturally, anxious that repayment should be made as quickly as possible after he had announced the action that he was proposing to take. No Chancellor, and still less the Committee, would wish those with money to claim to have to wait unduly long for it. One of the special advantages of having an early repayment is that those who wish to spend it upon possibly their first holiday for a long time will have fine weather in which to do so. I hope that the Financial Secretary will


not make machinery difficulties for us simply because the forms are being printed in advance of the approval of the House to the Bill. The Bill seeks to give validity to the action the Chancellor is taking in advance of its passing into law, and the House will be very indulgent about that. in the interests of speed and of getting the money into the hands of those who are waiting for it.
But I suggest that it is not a suitable excuse to be made by the Government in declining to accept what we are proposing, even though it may mean a little inconvenience in adding a fourth category, and the forms may be printed. We can print another form. There are plenty of forms about, and another will not make much difference, especially if its printing means the entitlement to receive post-war credits by a category of people not yet included.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am pleased to support this Amendment. When introducing the Bill the Chancellor named three groups to whom post-war credits would be repaid. The first was those coming within the lower age groups of 63 for men and 58 for women. The second was to widows of holders of postwar credits. The third was clearly defined hardship cases. This Amendment will help the Chancellor to include more cases in that third group. Disabled and blind persons seem to be clearly defined.
This Amendment includes other cases which I feel that the Chancellor should accept. It relates to those who have been sick for a period of six months and receive benefit under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946, or benefits assessed on the basis of 100 per cent. disablement under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. They are clear cases of hardship which, in my opinion, the Chancellor should include.
In my constituency there are sick and disabled people who will never work again and the repayment of their postwar credits would help them and their families. One of my constituents came to see me about the repayment of the postwar credits due to him. He is partially disabled and can barely walk. He is unable to follow his normal employment and he wishes to purchase a set of special tools to do light fretwork at home. I sent the particulars of this case to the Chancellor and I trust that my constituent

comes clearly within the third category described by the Chancellor when he introduced the Bill.
A period of illness extending over six months would in most cases exhaust the savings of the person involved and create hardship for his family, especially if he is the principal wage-earner. The payment of any post-war credits due to him would be of great assistance not only to him, but to his wife and children. Six months is a long time to be ill, and such an illness must be serious. The Chancellor should accept the Amendment and include among those eligible to receive post-war credits people who have received sickness benefits for six months or who are 100 per cent. disabled. This is a modest request. The people concerned have been waiting for fifteen to seventeen years for these post-war credits. The money was deducted from that which they earned during the war period and this "nest egg" has been laying by for a long time.
In his Budget speech the Chancellor did not state all the cases of hardship clearly. This Amendment will assist the right hon. Gentleman to be fair to this category of persons, and I hope that it will be accepted so that the sick and disabled persons not in the 63-year group for men and the 58-year group for women can be repaid their credits without delay. The people will consider it fair for them to be included in the hardship group.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wish to support the Amendment, which I hope the Financial Secretary will accept, and to explain my reasons for doing so. We are all agreed that the object of the Bill is to accelerate the repayment of postwar credits in the case of hardship. This Amendment is designed to include within the purview of those admitted for acceleration cases—it must be a limited number—where hardship results either because of a period of sickness or because of industrial injury.
With his legal experience, I am sure that the Financial Secretary will be familiar with cases of people who have suffered from injury or disease as a result of their employment. I will not traverse the whole history of the subject, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that prior to 1946 there were many cases heard in the courts and reported


in the Law Reports under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or the Employers' Liability Act.
There was that curious doctrine of common employment and a proliferation of legal case histories on which depended whether a particular individual who, through no fault of his own, had suffered some injury at work should be compensated. The injury might have been caused because of defective machinery or because of the fault of another workman, or even through some semi-negligence on the part of the victim, as a result of which he was incapacitated for a long period, and he and his family were thereby exposed to great economic hardship.
The Financial Secretary will also know that as a result of the efforts of the Labour Government, in 1946, a considerable change in the law was effected by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act of that year. This Act gave an injured workman certain rights of insurance benefit without the necessity of having to prove some of the things which previously he had to prove. I am sure that the Financial Secretary also will be aware that even since 1946 considerable hardship has been suffered by many men, skilled and unskilled, who, through no fault of their own—perhaps through nobody's fault—were injured in accidents in the factory or the docks where they worked. Such a man might lose a limb or suffer an injury which would incapacitate him for a long time. That is a class of case for which I have particular sympathy.
We have all heard of these cases and had to advise such people about their course of action. We all know that as the English law stands today such people have no absolute right to claim compensation against their employers unless—as is rarely the case—they can prove that there has been some deliberate fault, or omission or trap on the part of the employer or the employing company.
In 99 cases out of 100 these people are dependent on the provisions of the Act of 1946 which, as the Financial Secretary will know, gives them very limited, although no doubt valuable, benefits under those circumstances. They are given specified and ascertainable benefits whether or not they can prove negligence, and even though there may have been some

contributory negligence on their part. I am not denying the benefits provided by that Act, but the Committee will know that we are now discussing a class of persons who may be affected by an element of hardship which has no relation to old age or to middle age.
Accidents happen capriciously to anyone at any age and they result in a temporary period of real hardship for the victim and his family. No one can pretend that the benefits provided under the 1946 Act are anything like adequate to compensate a man for the wages which he would have earned had he been able to continue in his employment, and the person involved suffers a definite and sometimes substantial loss of weekly income. Therefore, now that we are considering what people deserve to receive their post-war credits before others we urge that those who, through no fault of their own, have suffered injury at their work, should at least be considered sympathetically.
To a limited number of people the release of their post-war credits at a time when they have suffered injury would be of value, but were payment deferred until they attained the age of 65 it would become, not irrelevant, but less worth while. The time when they are suffering from the result of an accident or infirmity is the moment when they will say, with a throb in their hearts and with a pang of anguish, "Here I am, trying to struggle along for a few weeks on what I get under the provisions of the 1946 Act, when I know that I have a sum of money due to me in the form of post-war credits. This is the time when I could make use of it for the benefit of my wife and children and to tide over this difficult period before I recover from my disability, before I regain my health and am able to resume my work." Therefore, I say with all earnestness to the Financial Secretary, who is an honest and humane man, that these are the people who should be considered.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been pressing for these changes in the system of repayment of post-war credits for many years and I plead most earnestly with the Financial Secretary to include in the categories mentioned in the Bill that particularly deserving class of people who, through no fault of their own, happen to encounter an accident in their occupations. I hope that as a result of any such accident they


will be given the benefit of being enabled, as of right, to claim the post-war credits to which they are entitled.

Mr. Donald Chapman: May I add two further reasons to the very eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). These reasons have not been mentioned, but I think that they will command some support. First, the Chancellor said last Wednesday that one class which should have priority for the repayment of postwar credits were those who would be receiving unemployability supplement under the war pensions Instruments, the Industrial Injuries Acts, or the Industrial Diseases (Benefits) Acts. The borderline between that category and the people on extended benefits under the National Insurance Act is a very slim one.
There are many deserving people in the particular definable category mentioned by the Chancellor—for example, in the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Acts. But there are also many breadwinners who are ill, and have been ill for years, and it has been a borderline decision as to whether their illness could be attributed to some specific disease, or some specific industrial cause. Many people are outside the three particular categories by chance, by chance medical evidence, or this or that, who, with a little more luck, could have slipped into one of the categories mentioned by the Chancellor but have to stay on extended benefits under the National Insurance Act. We will run into extraordinary difficulties in quietening the demands of people who have slipped outside in this way.
The other argument comes from the fact that the Chancellor has had to make arbitrary distinctions. We have agreed that somebody has to "chance his arm" with these arbitrary distinctions and try to end by making as little discontent as possible. And in that case I think that the Financial Secretary will agree that in making these arbitrary distinctions one must not militate against the people who set out to help themselves.
To illustrate what I mean, let me quote an example of a case that came to my notice in my own constituency, on Sunday last. Since 1955, the man has been unable to work because of what was finally diagnosed as cardiac debility. His heart is not strong enough for him to undertake very much exertion. The trouble

had developed late in life, but there was no clear evidence as to its origin. While he was in hospital his wife was on National Assistance for two periods of six months. She has a young daughter and, therefore, has every reason to stay at home. When he came out of hospital the family decided that they were not going to stay on National Assistance, but that his wife would go out to work and in that way they could fend for themselves.
This family could have stayed quite legitimately not only on National Insurance extended benefit, but also on National Assistance. Instead of that the wife decided that she would go out to work and do a full week's work because she preferred her independence and the family would be a little better off than if they stayed on National Assistance. She is at work for a full week and is £1 better off, as a result of deciding that it is worth sticking out for her independence.
Here is a family which could definitely have stayed fully inside the framework of our social services, inside even the distinctions set out by the Chancellor about receiving National Assistance, and it would be wrong to make the demarcation point just the wrong side of this category. Those are two legitimate arguments. We disagree about the borderline business and in making arbitrary distinctions like this one must be careful not to militate against those who help themselves.
I hope that this will add to the weight of arguments, and that we will get from the Financial Secretary at least a pledge that this will be one of the first categories to be brought into benefit under the Bill later in the year.

4.15 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. F. S. Simon): The Amendment would result in the payment of post-war credits to many of the long-term sick and disabled. As we know, that is a class which is very frequently in financial difficulties. I do not suppose many of us are under any other impression but that they are a class which is frequently likely to suffer hardship. if anybody were in doubt, after hearing the very eloquent, and if I may say so the very


persuasive, way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) put the case, and the way it was supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), that doubt would no longer exist. The hon. Member for Islington has a wealth of legal experience in handling industrial injury cases, and the other hon. Members have a wealth of experience in social constituency matters.
I am sure it is right that this is a category in which one finds many cases of hardship. Nevertheless, successive Treasury Ministers and Chancellors have refused to deal with cases of hardship at all. The reason is a perfectly simple one and is known to every hon. Member of the Committee. It is the difficulty of drawing the line. Whatever case one brings, there will always be cases left out which seem as hard to us as some of those which have been included. Some of those cases are very much harder than some of the cases where post-war credits are repaid, and successive Chancellors have said that it is impossible to draw a line, and that hardship should, therefore, not be adopted as a criteria. As I think my right hon. Friend said, either in the Budget debate or in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the difficulty arises not so much in the cases one includes, but in the cases one leaves out.
Nevertheless, I think that there was an overwhelming desire that a start should be made with this problem if it was possible, and in a sense my right hon. Friend was performing an act of faith in doing that. He was responding to the wish of the House in the belief that he would not be pressed to extend the classes which he thought it was right to start on. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby for indicating that he thought the classes we had chosen were the priority classes, although he rightly urged the claims and the hardship of the people under discussion in the Amendment. My right hon. Friend did, however, say:
I ask them not to press for any immediate extension or alteration of the classes who are to receive payment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1959; Vol. 603, c. 1039.]

The first reason is that as soon as we move the borderline, there will be others.
The second reason is a matter to which the hon. Member for Sowerby referred, namely, that the Inland Revenue and its machine has had loaded on to it in this operation as much as it can manage for the time being. As the hon. Member, with his wide knowledge of the Inland Revenue staff problems, reminded us, very rightly, on Second Reading, these repayments will mean extensive overtime during the summer months in the Inland Revenue.
We hope, by the way we have handled this matter, to get at least the bulk of the credits—all except the difficult cases —repaid by the end of August. Then, as the hon. Member knows better than I do, one is almost on the autumn routine in the Inland Revenue offices. The Committee will realise that we are imposing a very heavy burden on the public servants in the Inland Revenue Department, which they are shouldering willingly. There is, however, a limit beyond which one cannot push them.
There is the other matter, to which the hon. Member referred, of the printing of the claim forms. I do not say that we should be the servants of the printing machine, but in the wish to respond to what was, obviously, the desire of the House, and in the light of the reception that these proposals got in the Budget debate, we have pushed on with the printing of the claim forms on the basis of my right hon. Friend's proposals. Indeed, the printing has now been completed and distribution has begun. It was necessary to do that if the forms were to be out in the post offices by 4th May and repayments were to start on 1st June.
I do not doubt that it would be possible to print supplemental forms dealing with other cases and, as I say, we should not regard ourselves as necessarily bound by the exigencies of our printing programme. Nevertheless, it would cause considerable difficulties and muddle to have additional forms coming in on to the post office counters. It would cause additional work in the Inland Revenue as the mistakes between the two forms are sorted out, and so on. On both those grounds, therefore—the fact that in response to what we believed, and what we have been led to understand, was the desire of the House that


we should push on with this work and that we should do so even if it meant drawing, as the hon. Member for Northfield rightly put it, an arbitrary line—we thought it right to proceed in the way that we have done.
Having said that, I would mention two other minor points which the Committee will want to consider. The first is that the Amendment does not fit into the pattern of the Bill. Again, it is not necessarily conclusive, but it would be a little odd to write one special class of hardship category into the Bill when we were dealing with the other classes in a Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Houghton: How else can we do it?

Mr. Simon: I realise that this is a sensible and legitimate way of getting the matter discussed in Committee, and of course, the only way. I make no complaint. That is, however, a matter that the Committee will want to consider if it comes to deciding whether to press the Amendment to a Division. It would make legislative nonsense.
I am not going into the details, but there are, furthermore, technical defects in the Amendment. It excludes certain categories of person among the chronic sick whom we would wish to include if it were possible to do so. I need not go into that in detail at the moment.
Then, there is the question of the cost and the numbers likely to be involved. I ant advised that about 200,000 initial applicants would be involved and that this would entail a cost of between £7 and £8 million. The Committee will, therefore, see that it is much more than is involved in any of the other hardship cases. Indeed, it is more than my right hon. Friend could at present contemplate. He has made the remissions of taxation and the repayments of post-war credits that he proposed as generous as he thought right in the circumstances with the need to maintain a balance in the Budget and the limitation which necessarily must be put upon borrowing.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman split up the £7 million as between sickness and industrial injury beneficiaries?

Mr. Simon: I am sorry; I cannot give the breakdown. If the hon. Member

wishes to have the information, I can, perhaps, ask for it and write to him. In future years, one would expect 100,000 or 150,000 new cases each year, which would give an annual cost of between £3 and £6 million.
There is one other thing I ought to say before I sum up. The hon. Member for Sowerby was quite justified in claiming that the criterion and the condition here satisfies what, I think, the whole Committee has recognised as a necessary criterion: in other words, that it must. be some objectively assessable class. This class certainly falls into that category.
For the reasons I have given, I ask the hon. Member for Sowerby not to press his Amendment. Having said that, however, I repeat that this is obviously a class of person whose claims must excite the sympathy of anyone who knows anything of the suffering and needs of the long-term sick. My right hon. Friend is asking the House of Commons to give him power to extend the present classes for repayment by statutory Order and although I cannot commit him as to time or specifically as to any special class, I can say—and I hope this will meet the views which have been put forward in the Committee—that this is obviously one of the very early classes whose claims my right hon. Friend or any successor of his would consider.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am sorry about the reply—not its tone, but its content and substance—of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, especially after his sympathetic and understanding opening words. On Second Reading, I gave a pledge that we would not improperly push these cases. We agreed that to pay hardship cases at all lines must be drawn, and that there must be people one side and the other of the lines. We said that if we did this at all, we would do it with great responsibility. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, I think, agree that we have done so. We have put forward only one case. A great many others could have been pressed. The one that we have put forward can be tested by objective standards, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
The Amendment cannot be claimed to be the thin end of the wedge. We have put forward one case only. Owing to the machinery that has been chosen for carrying through further repayments, it


appears to be impossible for the Opposition ever to make any other proposal. Repayment will be done, I imagine, by affirmative Order and it is impossible for us to make any other proposals. It is for the Government of the day to use the machinery of regulation. Therefore, there is nothing in the argument that this is the thin end of the wedge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) pointed out, the specific class whose claims we are advancing merges closely into those already dealt with by the Chancellor.
We do not feel that there is much in the printing argument. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman advanced a series of arguments, not one of which he regarded as conclusive in itself. Each one did not carry a great deal of weight. The hon. and learned Gentleman's main case was that the whole lot put together, no single one of which was conclusive, somehow added up to a case against the Amendment. Thds was, no doubt, due to the Financial Secretary's general sympathy towards the class of person, but that was what it amounted to. There is not one argument put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman on which, taken by itself, he could have rested an argument that the Amendment should be refused.
It would be easy to print an extra form if one wanted to do so. That is one of the simple things which could be done. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not advance seriously his argument about the pattern of the Bill. We realise that we cannot have a Bill containing only one hardship case, but there was no other way in which we could bring the matter forward. We would willingly abandon the Amendment if the hon. and learned Gentleman gave a clear undertaking that its effect would be introduced in the regulations. He said that it would make legislative nonsense, but if the Amendment were carried or accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman it would not make nonsense to the chronic sick, who, by general consent, are amongst those facing the gravest and most serious hardship.
4.30 p.m.
For all these reasons, we must insist upon the Amendment. We have not been given the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr.

Houghton) asked, that this proposal would be effected, if not immediately, quickly and certainly. We have only been told, in effect, that it will be sympathetically borne in mind and that it may be possible to do it one day. I find the total cost of three and a half times all the other hardship cases a little hard to believe. These must be tentative figures on all sides. The cost of any of these proposals must be extremely tentative, because the figures are not known.

Mr. Simon: If one can form an estimate of the number of likely applicants, all I do is to multiply that by the average figure of post-war credits. That was why I gave a spread. Before the right hon. Gentleman finally commits himself, I beg him to think before he presses the matter to a Division. I pointed out that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was performing an act of faith. We have taken a risk, perhaps an unjustifiable risk, in saying that we will deal with certain ascertainable classes even though there are other classes into which they merge. It will make it very difficult for any future Treasury Minister to make a concession in this sort of case, which, I believe, the whole House desired my right hon. Friend to make, if he is pressed on this sort of matter.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree that it would be a pity to divide on this, as there is broad agreement on the general merits of the Bill. None the less, unless we can get a firm assurance—because, so far, we have been given no real assurance at all—I do not think that we have any other way of showing how strongly we feel on this matter. If we divide, it will not be on the merits of the Bill, but to show the strength of our feelings.
We think that the Amendment could have been accepted. We do not think that the argument that this will make it impossible for future Chancellors to make this sort of concession is a powerful one. I realise the various difficulties, and said so on Second Reading. That is why we have been very responsible during this Committee stage. We have shown our sense of responsibility by putting forward only one case, and refusing to put forward many others that we could have advanced had we just been courting popularity. If all hon. Members will always behave as


responsibly in opposition as we are behaving now there is no danger of future Chancellors being deterred from such an act as this, which we think important. But unless we get a firm assurance from the Financial Secretary we must divide the Committee, because we feel very strongly on this subject.

Mr. Ray Mawby: It would be a very great pity to divide on this point and so disturb the general agreement there now is on the new attitude towards the repayment of post-war credits. We can all agree on the points that have been put forward. We all know that any man who has been on sickness benefit for more than six months is a needy case, as, also, are the other categories that have been mentioned.
My hon. and learned Friend has said that many other people, both in groups and as individuals could be regarded as needy cases, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said all the way through that these easily ascertainable groups that have already been chosen should be dealt with first. In that way, the administrative machinery will not be bogged down, as it would be if it had to deal with much larger numbers within a reasonably short time.
During the Second Reading debate, I sail: that I could not think of any other easily ascertainable group that could be brought in. This Amendment proves me wrong, but it does not alter the point I then made, that it would be folly to try to move this demarcation line, which will always be a problem. We shall always have difficulty with it, and those left on one side of the line will find things more difficult and painful than those on the right side of it.
If we were now further to move the line we might delay the repayment of those deemed to be the most important cases because the administrative machine could not cope with the additional claims. I would not like that to happen. In saying that the cases the Committee is now discussing will be taken into consideration as soon as it is found possible to deal with them, my hon. and learned Friend is moving forward.
There is so much theory about the whole thing. My right hon. Friend can only theorise about the numbers that will be involved even by the Order that is

to be laid. Again, a certain amount of theorising is involved in determining how long it will take the Inland Revenue to deal with the different claimants. That depends very much on the number of claimants who still possess their certificates. If a large number have mislaid them, the theoretical view of the probable time the operation will take will go completely haywire.
I therefore ask the Committee to seek to resolve this matter by some means other than a Division. On all sides we have shown my hon. and learned Friend that we feel that these are desperate cases, and that we should take them into consideration as soon as we can without interfering with the rights of others. If we take my hon. and learned Friend's assurance on that now, we shall be serving the Committee better.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: I agree that we should try to resolve this. Hon. Members are in a very difficult position. The question is how to resolve it. Do we resolve it by asking the Financial Secretary to say a little more, or do we resolve it by asking my right hon. Friend completely to forgo his feelings? No one wants to stop the Chancellor making the sort of gesture that has been made on this occasion. Equally, no Chancellor can claim, before a full discussion in this Committee, everything about the sincere feelings of each hon. Member. So long as what we are suggesting is not outside the framework or the spirit of the proposals, is not making a misshapen gesture out of this small Act but is rounding it off, one is really acting very responsibly in insisting that something should be paid to the category mentioned in the Amendment.
I shall not go happily into the Division Lobby. It would be a great mistake to divide the Committee when, with a little more understanding and co-operation we could agree in the interests of the people whom we are all anxious to serve. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he is putting them almost at the top of the list, but he will not say how near the top they are either in position or time. Our difficulty is that we do not control the Government's timetable, or the opportunities they give for discussion or action. The Financial Secretary has spoken with the greatest understanding


and sympathy, and with the greatest desire to get the two sides of the Committee together. I appeal to him to say something a little more helpful than he has so far said.

Mr. Simon: I always find it very difficult to fail to respond to the appeals of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond)—or, indeed, to the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's final reply, but I am sure that hon. Members will see that I am going as far as any Minister standing at this Box can go in these circumstances. Obviously, I cannot commit the Chancellor to a payment of £8 million which cannot be made at the moment. It must be fed into the machine and cannot take place at any particular time or in priority to other expenditure. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that.
What I do say is that we are taking power, and the House obviously approved that we should take it, to add different classes by regulation. As I think I have made quite plain, my right hon. Friend will consider very carefully what has been said today about what is a clearly definable class and one that contains a high degree of what one ordinarily calls hardship and financial need. Obviously, when one has to consider extending the classes for repayment this one must rank very high indeed.
Nobody has suggested any other class that ranks higher. I do not say that, on scrutiny, there may not be such another class, but in the absence of suggestions the class mentioned in the Amendment must rank very high indeed for repayment. I hope that the Committee will see that in saying what I have said I have gone as far as any Financial Secretary is entitled to go, if not further.

Mr. George Chetwynd: What the Financial Secretary has said goes a long way towards satisfying me, at least. I said on Second Reading that I could not think of any other clearly-defined category of people who could come within the scope of the Bill, but I have been proved wrong by this Amendment. I doubt whether the cost of accepting this proposal would be as high as the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks, as I am quite certain that quite a large number of those who qualify because of six

months' sickness will, at the same time, qualify by the 12-week period on National Assistance. Taking that fact into account, is the net figure still £8 million? If it is, I find it extremely difficult to understand.
Will not the Financial Secretary say that when the next move is made for the repayment of post-war credits this class of people will have first priority? If he could say that, I think that it would satisfy all my right hon. and hon. Friends. I understand that these regulation-making powers are sought so that we shall not have to wait for another Budget or another Bill before taking any further action. Can we infer from that that there is likely to be another "dishing out" of post-war credits before this time next year? Can we also infer that when that time comes this category will be put at the top of the list? To hear that from the hon. and learned Gentleman would at least satisfy me.

Sir James Duncan: should like to reinforce the pleas made to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) to withdraw his Amendment. We are all agreed on the general principle. We are all agreed that this class deserves the earliest possible repayment. And as far as I could gather from my hon. and learned Friend, he has gone as far to agree with the rest of us as any Minister in his position could reasonably be expected to go.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) seemed to assume that if his hon. Friends gave way on this there would be no further opportunity for discussion of this class, as further action would be taken by regulation. I think that he is mistaken in that assumption. We have the ordinary process of Parliamentary Questions and of Adjournment debates. There is the Queen's Speech, and the next Budget debate. Opportunities can be found for raising, and pressing, this matter at all periods of the Parliamentary year. I do not think that there is any force in that argument.
The hon. Member for Sowerby himself appreciated the present administrative difficulty of extending the repayment of post-war credits beyond those in the various age groups, the widows and those in the existing hardship classes. I understand that 1,400,000 people may be able to claim, plus the 300,000 who will be


covered by a normal year's payment—a total of 1,700,000, and that the cost will he about £71 million.
That is a very big operation for the Treasury to undertake. Although I did not take down his words—because I did not think that there would be any question of a Division, nor did I intend to speak— got the impression from the hon. Member for Sowerby that he would be satisfied if he got an assurance that the class of people mentioned in the Amendment would be dealt with as soon as the Treasury could do so, or would be dealt with in the next instalment of repayments on hardship grounds.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied. It is the right hon, Member for Smethwick who does not seem to be. I hope that the intervention of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) will force the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind, because both sides of the Committee agree that we want to get this done as soon as possible and as soon as the administrative machine and the economic situation of the country can afford the extra money.
I earnestly appeal to the hon. Member for Sowerby and to the right hon. Gentleman to change their minds and not force a Division.

Mr. Norman Cole: I hope that we shall not find cause to spoil the happy proceedings which we had on Second Reading last Wednesday, when the House was united on something that we all want. The Amendment is concerned with two classes of people who are seriously ill or in-

capacitated, those who, for 26 weeks, have been receiving National Health benefit and those in receipt of 100 per cent. industrial injuries benefit. To put it shortly, but sympathetically, I would say to the Financial Secretary that the sooner provision is made to pay these people the post-war credits to which they are due the better. It would be better for it to be done now than in a year's time.

Mr. David Jones: listened to the last speech of the Financial Secretary in which he said that he had gone as far as a Financial Secretary could go. I wonder whether, however, between now and Report, he will consult the Chancellor and make a much firmer statement than the one he has made before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Ede: It will be quite easy to make such a statement, because there will be no Report stage.
It is about time that we said frankly that we are getting tired of the way in which some Government Departments present Bills to the House and being told that the Parliamentary Secretary or Financial Secretary in charge of them can make no concession during the debate since they have their orders and dare not move one way or the other. There was a Financial Secretary who once made a concession without orders. That was in the days when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had his reward—he became a peer.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 230.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[4.54 p.m


Ainsley, J. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burke, W. A.
Edelman, M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Baird, J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Balfour, A.
Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fernyhough, E.


Bence, G. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Champion, A. J.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)


Benson, Sir George
Chapman, W. D.
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)


Beswick, Frank
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fletcher, Eric


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Clunie, J.
Forman, J. C.


Blackburn, F.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Blyton, W. R.
Cronin, J. D.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gibson, C. W.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gooch, E. G.


Bowles, F.G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Boyd, T. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Anthony


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Grenfeil, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Diamond, John
Grey, C. F.




Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McCann, J.
Short, E. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mclnnes, J,
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hale, Leslie
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McLeavy, Frank
Skeffington, A. M.


Hamilton, W. W.
MacPherson, Maloolm (Stirling)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hannan, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Snow, J. W.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Roy
Sparks, J. A.


Healey, Denis
Mayhew, C. P,
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J.
Stonehouse, John


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Monslow, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Holman, P.
Moody, A. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Holmes, Horace
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Houghton, Douglas
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm, S.)
Swingler, S. T.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Howell, Denis (AH Saints)
Moss, R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.
Timmons, J.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, T.
Tomney, F.


Hunter, A. E.
Owen, W. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Padley, W. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paton, John
Watkins, T. E.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, A.
Weltzman, D.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Peart, T. F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Pentland, N.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wllkins, W. A.


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tlliery)


Jones, Jaok (Rotherham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, A. R.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Kenyon, C.
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Redhead, E. C.
Winterbottom, Richard


King, Dr. H. M.
Reeves, J.
Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.


Lawson, G. M.
Reid, William
Woof, R. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rhodes, H.
Zilliacus, K.


Lindgren, G. S,
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Lipton, Marcus
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Logan, D. G.
Royle, C.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cary, Sir Robert
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H. P. G.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cole, Norman
Glover, D.


Arbuthnot, John
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Armstrong, c. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Godber, J. B.


Ashton, H.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Goodhart, Philip


Atkins, H. E.
Corfield, F. V.
Cough, C. F. H.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gower, H. R.


Balniel, Lord
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Barber, Anthony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Barter, John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Green, A.


Batsford, Brian
Cunningham, Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Currie, G. B. H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Davidson, Viscountess
Gurden, Harold


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
de Ferranti, Basil
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bidgood, J. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)


Blggs-Davison, J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bingham, R. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Hay, John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
du Cann, E. D. L.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Sir James
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Black, Sir Cyril
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Body, R. F.
Eden, J, B. (Bournemouth, West)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Errington, Sir Eric
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A,
Erroll, F. J.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Braine, B. R.
Fell, A.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fisher, Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fort, R.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Freeth, Denzil
Holt, A. F.


Burden, F. F. A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hornby, R. P.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Gammans, Lady
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Carr, Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Horobin, Sir Ian







Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Marshall, Douglas
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Mawby, R. L.
Speir, R. M.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hyde, Montgomery
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Storey, S.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholls, Harmer
Studholme, Sir Henry


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Teellng, W.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Oakshott, H. D.
Temple, John M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Kimball, M.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Partridge, E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Leavey, J. A.
Peel, W. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Leburn, W. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pott, H. P.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wade, D. W.


Longden, Gilbert
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Ramsden, J. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Low, nt. Hon. Sir Toby
Redmayne, M.
Wall, Patrick


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Renton, D. L. M.
Webster, David


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McMaster, Stanley
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wood, Hon. R.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maddan, Martin
Sharples, R. C.



Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Shepherd, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Bryan.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Houghton: I wonder whether the Financial Secretary has given further consideration to the matter which was raised by several hon. Members during the Second Reading debate, relating to arrears of unpaid tax outstanding which are being set off in many cases against post-war credits when they are repaid? The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we must not exaggerate this problem and I do not exaggerate it, but, by an unhappy coincidence, one of the most grievous cases of all came into my hands the other day. It was a case in which almost everything seems to have gone wrong. When circumstances of this sort arise, the Chancellor should give directions for sympathetic treatment.
This case concerns a man who has now reached 65 years of age. He had two lots of post-war credits, one his own, and the other belonging to his son, who was killed in the war in 1945. He has held his late son's post-war credits for fourteen years. Apparently, when the son was killed the certificates were reissued in the name of the father. Now, on attaining the age of 65, the father has asked for

repayment of the post-war credits left by his son.
When he asked for the repayment of £29 14s. he was told that only £14 15s. was due, first, because there had been two certificates in one year, one for £9 18s. 3d. and the other for 17s. 6d. and one replaces the other. The smaller replaces the bigger, as it nearly always does. He was also told that his son owed £5 os. 9d. arrears of tax.
This is a shocking case. How can this man deal with an alleged tax arrear of £5 os. 9d. due from his late son who was shot down over Germany in 1945? I ask the Committee, how can the father clear up a matter of this kind? As for the issue of duplicate certificates, that, no doubt, was a grievous error on someone's part, or one certificate was issued without it being made clear that the previous one was no longer valid. I impress on the Financial Secretary the need for holders of post-war credits to know exactly what they have to their credit before the time of repayment comes.
Many post-war creditors have still to wait a long time, unless the Chancellor is to accelerate the repayment on one ground or another. It is not fair to ask


taxpayers to rummage about among old papers, if they have still kept them—who, after all, wants to keep Income Tax papers any longer than is necessary?—to find out what happened fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, or twenty years ago. Any doubts or difficulties of this kind—alleged arrears, duplicate certificates, and so on—should be cleared up. Otherwise, there will be constant difficulty at the point of repayment when expectations are at their highest and disappointment will be felt most acutely.
5.0 p.m.
Any of us might be told, years before post-war credits are due on present prospects, "You have not as much as you thought you had. You owe a bit of money which you never paid. If you like to go into that we shall do our best to satisfy you". We could take that situation more calmly now than when we arrive at the date when repayment is due and when, probably weeks or months in advance, we have decided what to do with the money, to put it in the Post Office, or in a building society, or to buy something we have wanted for a long time. To find then that one is unexpectedly short would be extremely disappointing. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take this fresh appeal very seriously indeed. This Clause puts in the hands of the Chancellor power to lay regulations proposing further payments of post-war credits either by reference to hardship qualification or by reference to age.
I was rather interested to notice the other day that the Prime Minister announced, at an apparently very enthusiastic Conservative youth meeting, that he had recently drawn his post-war credits. He said that his right hon. and hon. Friends had to look on the ageing, souring countenances of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the Committee and he felt sorry for his right hon. and hon. Friends having that sort of outlook every day. But is there anything very inspiring about the benches opposite just now? I do not see them packed with dewy-eyed youths and adventurers —those who are marching to the future with a fixed look on their faces. I think that a meeting of Conservative youth is a singularly inappropriate moment for the Prime Minister to put himself in pers-

pective by saying that he has just drawn his post-war credits.

Mr. Ede: I have not drawn mine.

Mr. Houghton: I would not like to speculate on the reasons why my right hon. Friend has not been able to do so. Probably he is unable to find proof of age. I should not be a bit surprised if that were so, because my right hon. Friend has the secret of eternal youth.
This Clause gives to the Chancellor the future responsibility for the repayment of post-war credits. A beginning has been made and we welcome it. The House of Commons has had very little power up to now over the rate of repayment of postwar credits. It has found it singularly difficult to get any debate on the subject at all. There have been frequent attempts to do so on Finance Bills, but they have failed because there was apparently nothing to which an Amendment could be moved. Procedural difficulties have undoubtedly stood in the way.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will not take it too much to heart that we divided a few minutes ago on the one opportunity that we had of registering opinion on the adequacy of the hardship categories. It is always extremely difficult to divide against the hon. and learned Gentleman on anything, because he is so gracious and generous in all his references to his opponents. There are, however, occasions when even under such engaging blandishments it is necessary for the Opposition to register their opinion. After all, what is one Division more or less when most hon. Members are proud of their Division record?

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend under Clause 1 (2) to a very small but not undeserving body of people who hold post-war credits and who have the intention of permanently emigrating from this country. I must confess that I did not think of this matter until a constituent, a lady aged 54, wrote to me on the day following the Budget, drawing attention to the fact that she was leaving for Canada in a few weeks—

Mr. Jack Jones: No wonder.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Jack Jones: I said "No wonder".

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: The lady concerned has been a member of the Kidderminster Conservative Association for very many years, so it is unlikely.
This lady wrote to me pointing out that her husband and herself were emigrating permanently to Canada and that under the recent Treasury relaxations concerning transfer of sterling and conversion into Canadian dollars, she would be able to take with her a maximum of £5,000, instead of the former limit imposed of only £1,500. This lady has not that sum of capital, so far as I am aware.
I make the point to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Treasury thought it desirable recently to make this important dispensation in relaxation in the amount of sterling that may be freely converted to American or Canadian dollars in the case of a permanent emigrant, and I should have thought that in the circumstances of a relatively minor sum of money involved, such as the payment of post-war credits to men and women permanently emigrating, although administratively difficult, would, in the long term, save administrative work in the Treasury and other Government Departments.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend what will be the situation a few years' hence if someone who goes from this country to live in North America makes application for repayment of relatively small sums, such as £25, £50 or £75. I ask him to realise the amount of work involved, particularly if that person has no banking account in this country or in North America. in ensuring that he has the money.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would not be able to ascertain what a relaxation of this kind would cost in a full year, but I say to the Committee with confidence that there cannot be many women old enough to possess post-war credits who intend to emigrate permanently. I should have thought that as an act of graciousness, and particularly in view of the fact that under this Bill it is intended to make Orders to be laid before the House by the Treasury authorising repayments to certain classes of persons, we should do well to consider the conditions of persons emigrating permanently from the United Kingdom and facilitate

the repayment of post-war credits due to them before the date of their departure.

Mr. Diamond: I am encouraged by what the Financial Secretary said earlier about finding it difficult to resist an appeal from me to rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and to particularise in regard to the suggestions which he made.
I say straight away, in relation to what the Prime Minister said, that I find myself in a very different position. During our financial debates I am always astounded by the look on the face of the Financial Secretary which implies generosity and flexibility of mind and by the ever-smiling countenance of the Economic Secretary which is of a kind to suggest that one has only to make one's point to have it accepted and acted upon. I would not like to go beyond the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Nabarro: Why not?

Mr. Diamond: As I am not a member of the Kidderminster Conservative Association, I do not have to escape to Canada.
The Financial Secretary, in his Second Reading speech, referred to this difficult question of the difference between the post-war creditor and the post-war credit certificate holder. I gather that there is a subtle distinction. The post-war certificate holder is a person who has a certificate and who is led to expect by the amount on the certificate that that is the amount that he or she will receive. A post-war creditor is a person who is a creditor for the amount which is on the certificate less the amount which has been deducted for arrears in some other way.
Obviously, everyone expects that there should be repayment of the amount shown on the face of the certificate. I am the last person to be in a position to make this case strongly because I understand only too well the difficulties of the Inland Revenue and how it comes about that a second certificate has to be given on occasion and how it was virtually impossible in the earlier stages to delay the certificate until the amount of tax had been finally agreed and settled. I understand that, but I also understand, as we all understand, the great feeling that is aroused, especially in cases of inheritance, when someone has inherited from the original holder who has died, and finds


for the first time that there is a deficiency between the amount shown on the certificate and the amount to be repaid.
None of us has to look far to find an example. I would quote a letter from an inspector of taxes dated 17th April, which says that my constituent
Mr. X died on 10th September, 1946… Notices for the two later years"—
that is, for 1944–45 and 1945–46—
were issued on 30th July, 1947 "—
nearly twelve months after the death.
No appeal or other objection was made against any of the assessments.
Of course, no appeal was made, because the assessed person was by that time nine months' dead. It is most unlikely that in those circumstances, since this was a modest income and a person without great knowledge of Income Tax affairs, that the widow or anybody else would be in a position or have the necessary knowledge to object to any assessment.
I am asking, therefore, for two things. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary could grant more than I ask, but I do not ask him to limit it. I do not ask for anything different from what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby asked should be done. I do not want anything to happen to burden the Revenue in such a way that there will be delay in payments of those post-war creditors who are to receive payment straight away and for whose convenience we are rushing through this provision as fast as we reasonably can.
For those who are to receive payment straight away I ask, first, as a matter of administration and nothing else, which I am sure the Financial Secretary will grant, that in every case where the amount to be repaid is less than the amount appearing on the certificate there shall be a full explanation given at the time, showing details of the four or five years' assessments in question and the arrears deducted.
I cannot imagine that that is very difficult. The Financial Secretary told us there are few cases, and that means that only a small proportion of those will be dealt with now. It cannot be a difficult question. The Inland Revenue has all the papers and assessments. At all events, if this were done it would lessen the blow

and would meet a good deal of the difficulty that arises through the expectation of something more than will actually be repaid.
The second thing for which I ask is a matter of an ex-statutory concession. There are many such concessions already. It is only a matter of administrative action. The Financial Secretary knows that it is the practice to publish a list of them from time to time and he can easily add to that list without troubling the House of Commons. In those cases where post-war credits are inherited there are circumstances in which the post-war creditor, the original holder, the original taxpayer, might have been in a position to deal with the assessment and to find out whether tax arrears were properly assessed or not, but where the inheritor succeeds to the post-war credits obviously the inheritor is probably unlikely to be able to deal with it. It comes as a complete shock. Generally, it is a case of a widow such as I have quoted. In those cases I submit that the Financial Secretary should agree that no time-limit should be imposed against the re-opening of the assessment.
In addition to all the details of the assessment being given in those cases where it was quite impossible in normal circumstances for the widow to have objected in time, she should not be penalised by not having had the knowledge to object in time. In many cases the Revenue could rely upon the passage of time and refuse to open an assessment, but this would be unfortunate in these cases. This concession would cost the Revenue absolutely nothing. It would merely give an opportunity to the taxpayer's inheritor to do what was necessary so that the right figure might be arrived at. These are simple requests to help smooth the way and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give them consideration.

Mr. Cole: I, too, would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary for his consideration of the points made about the worrying matter of the post-war credit certificates not representing what is actually due. My chief concern, as expressed on Second Reading, and again today by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), is to try in some way to palliate or lessen the disappointment of


people who find that they are not entitled to what the certificate had led them to believe.
I was glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend say on Second Reading that the number of these cases should not be exaggerated, but that number has no significance to a person who is a case in point. I am most anxious that my hon. and learned Friend, somehow or other, should sound the alarm about this matter without creating alarm among those to whom this correction of the face value of the certificate does not apply. There should be some way of awakening people to this possibility. We are glad that the Government are making this repayment of post-war credits. Since rapid progress is being made, this matter of the face value of the certificate is of great importance. I believe that the Inland Revenue would be greatly helped if some way could be found to deal with it before actual cases arise.
I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to go into the possibility of adopting some method. This difficulty springs from the laudatory action of the Inland Revenue, when post-war credit certificates were first issued, in putting something by way of a certificate into the hands of a creditor as soon as possible. It now appears that that good intention may come back on the Inland Revenue and give it more work, and create disappointment among certificate holders. I am sure that, with all the skill and brains available in the Civil Service, some way can be found to lessen this blow and to avoid people finding at the last minute, and not at a reasonable time beforehand, how they stand. The faster we go in paying post-war credits the larger and more imminent the problem becomes. I want to impress that fact upon my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Simon: Five points arise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". The first was raised by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). It arises from this difficult matter of arrears. Since Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has gone into the matter, as he promised. In saying that the dimensions of the problem should not be

exaggerated I was, of course, echoing the words of the hon. Member for Sowerby on Second Reading. I find that these cases constitute about 2 per cent. of the total. Therefore, what we both said fairly represents the dimensions of the problem. The amount of money involved may be about £2 million to £3 million in all.
My right hon. Friend considered very carefully whether any concession in the way of repayment of the face-value of the credits could be undertaken. The analogy was put of the remission of tax arrears owed by Service men at the end of the war. That analogy is not an exact one, because that was a remission of a debt owed to the Exchequer. This is the repayment of a sum which, ex hypothesi, was never paid.
5.30 p.m.
The Committee knows all the circumstances in which this situation arose, in which the amount shown on the face of the certificate differs from the amount due to the creditor. Generally speaking, it was due to the fiscal system in force during the first two years. There were other cases where the taxpayer had changed his job. There were even some cases where he had taken evasive action and left arrears of tax. One must recognise that there was the odd case where the mistake was that of the Inland Revenue, but the Committee will recognise that the Inland Revenue is manned by human beings, and that, therefore, mistakes are hound to occur. Also, it should be remembered that the Inland Revenue was working under great pressure during the war years, with an extremely depleted staff.
My right hon. Friend, having, gone into the matter with great care and sympathy, feels that this is not a case where it would be proper to say that the amount shown on the face of the certificate should be repaid, notwithstanding the warning on the back of the certificate, which I read out to the House during the Second Reading debate. The reasons are as follow. The first reason is that in cases where the credit has already been repaid, which are over one-third of the whole, we have restricted repayment, and it would be impracticable to reopen those cases. Secondly, in many cases no doubt the arrear was not the fault of the taxpayers but in others,


the odd cases, it must have been due to his negligence and, in the minority of cases, even to wilful evasive action or default on the part of the taxpayer.
The third is really the conclusive reason, as I am sure the Committee will agree. It is that we ought not to repay public money amounting to the substantial sum I mentioned, which has never been received. Therefore, with every good will, my right hon. Friend felt that this was a measure that could not be countenanced.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester was reasonable in asking that where there is this discrepancy a full explanation should be given by the Inland Revenue. That is an undertaking which I am prepared to give. He also asked for an extra-statutory concession where We post-war credit is inherited. I do not want to commit myself on that point until I have looked into the legal position, because if the Act of Parliament says that the matter is concluded then it may be far beyond the proper limits of the extra-statutory concessions, and we have a responsibility in these matters to the Public Accounts Committee, and, through it, to the House. However, I can say that the Inland Revenue will give special consideration to the case where the assessment for the post-war credit year is disputed, whether it is an inherited case or not.
The third point was raised by my hon Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), that of the permanent emigrants. All I can properly say is that when consideration is given to extending the classes for repayment that class will be considered in the light of his observations.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very much obliged.

Mr. Simon: The fourth matter that seemed to me to arise only remotely on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" was that of the countenances of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and myself and how far we were dewey-eyed, so perhaps I can be forgiven if I do not dwell further on that point.
I will refer, lastly, to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby. Of course, I do not take it amiss personally that the previous

Amendment was pressed to a Division. I think that it was unfortunate for the reasons I gave, but I should like to say how grateful I am for the way that the Bill has been received and for the expedition which the Committee is according it.

Mr. Diamond: May I say how grateful I am to the Financial Secretary for having listened so sympathetically to what was said? I promise not to ask him for anything more for the rest of today.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I ask a question arising out of the Financial Secretary's last few remarks? If the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the conclusion that he can make what he calls an extra-statutory concession, will he make it known in the House and elsewhere in general terms, so that everyone can be aware of it?

Mr. Simon: Yes, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(REGULATIONS.)

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, at the end to insert:
(3) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before the Commons House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of that House.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I think that it will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next two Amendments to page 5, line 11.

Mr. Simon: The first thing I ought to do is to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for appearing to hog the Notice Paper, because this Amendment differs only technically from that of the right hon. Gentleman. Since, however, we wanted to make quick progress with the Bill, I thought it right to put down an Amendment in the form which we were advised was the technically correct one.
The distinction between the two will be immediately obvious to the Committee, but in that of the right hon. Gentleman, although the approval is by Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament—


which I am advised is correct in what is purely a money Bill—the Statutory Instrument has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. This means that one would merely lay a piece of paper before another place, which would merely have the right to look at it and not do anything further about it. I am advised that this would be inappropriate, and that the proper form is in my right hon. Friend's Amendment, namely, that it should be laid before the Commons House of Parliament and approved by a Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament. The second Amendment is consequential.
The effect of the Amendment is to substitute the procedure by way of affirmative Resolution for that by way of negative Resolution in the Bill as drafted. That is in response to the plea made by the right hon. Gentleman during the Second Reading debate, supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). My right hon. Friend considered the matter. Although there are precedents both ways, it seemed to us, on balance, that where it is a question of the repayment of large sums of money from the Exchequer. which is certainly the case this year, and which is inherently likely to amount to a large sum whatever class one chooses for subsequent repayment, it is reasonable that one should proceed by affirmative Resolution to give the House more immediate and tangible seizure of the matter.
It would have been possible and, indeed, reasonable either to say that this time it should be a negative Resolution, or that we should have no Resolution at all, in that the Committee has had a very adequate opportunity of discussing the classes which are due for repayment and has shown whole-hearted approval of the classes that we have chosen. I think that we had a slight and unfortunate difference of opinion as to whether they should be exclusive, hut, on the whole, it was felt that if only for the constitutional form, it was better this year as well as in the future to proceed by affirmative Resolution.
It makes the timetable really tight, and that was one of the reasons why we originally chose and put in the Bill the procedure by negative Resolution. I am advised that, with the co-operation that has been shown, it will still be possible.
even proceeding by affirmative Resolution, to adhere to the timetable which my right hon. Friend indicated and which the House has approved.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I do not think that the Financial Secretary need in any way to minimise the importance of the Amendments we are discussing. As he pointed out, this is a substantial matter, which is contained in the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). It stems from the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend that this was the appropriate constitutional way of dealing with this matter, but it was damned with faint praise by the Leader of the Liberal Party, who, on the Second Reading of the Bill, seemed to suggest that, although this was the better way of dealing with it,
So much is improper that this tiny impropriety is a very small illegitimate baby indeed." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1959; Vol. 603, c. 1064.]
The Leader of the Liberal Party did not, therefore, attach very much importance—

Mr. Donald Wade: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a matter of proportion, though still illegitimate, but, compared with the whole subject of the control of expenditure and the way in which this repayment of post-war credits has been introduced and has been dealt with during and since the war, it is a minor evil, which we are glad to see rectified?

Mr. Fletcher: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's intervention has improved it. Bastardy is not a matter of proportion, and it does not help to make reference to a "very small illegitimate baby" I think that the hon. Member's intervention has underlined what I think is a lack of constitutional appreciation on the part of the Leader of the Liberal Party.
I want to emphasise that it is, in fact, the Labour Party, belatedly supported by the Liberal Party, which has insisted upon the constitutional importance of this matter, and, therefore, it is no use the Financial Secretary to the Treasury trying to claim any credit for this Amendment, which he moved in such engaging terms.
The credit for this Amendment is entirely due to a suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick. I think that this is not an unimportant occasion for us to underline the importance of what we are doing in this matter. The original intention of the Government was to make this matter subject to a negative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament, which, in my opinion, would have been fundamentally wrong, for two reasons.
In the first place, as has now been realised, this is a matter which does not concern the House of Lords at all. It will be quite wrong, in a financial Measure of this kind, to have legislated in such a way that any provision for the acceleration of the payment of post-war credits could have been frustrated by resolution of the House of Lord. That would have been quite wrong, and, therefore, I am very glad to see that, both in my right hon. Friend's Amendment and that put down in the name of the Chancellor, we have got rid of that particular constitutional anomaly.
5.45 p.m.
The second thing upon which we are now agreed is that by this Amendment it is recognised that any Motion on this subject should be by an affirmative Resolution. It is important to pause for a moment so that we and the country can understand the difference in this connection between affirmative and negative Resolutions. The Financial Secretary must realise that this Bill dealing with the repayment of post-war credits is very largely an agreed Measure. It was not opposed on Second Reading; in fact, it was warmly supported. Furthermore, the introduction of the Bill was very largely the result of consistent pressure from this side.
Therefore, I think it is very important that the country should recognise that, when we come to deal with any particular Statutory Instrument making provision for the repayment of post-war credits to the particular classes of hardship on which we are now agreed, it is an agreed Measure supported by the whole House. That could only be done if we adopt the form of the affirmative Resolution, because the essence of an affirmative Resolution, as distinct from the negative Resolution, as I understand it, is that

the affirmative Resolution expresses the will of the whole House. It means that a representative of the Government has to get up at the Treasury Box and propose it. If it is supported by the Opposition, it is carried as an agreed Measure of the whole House.
That is very different from a negative Resolution, where we have the machinery originally contemplated by the Government, but which I am now glad to see abandoned. If we have the affirmative Resolution, we have an executive act, not an act for which Parliament is primarily responsible, but an executive act of the Government, which takes effect immediately and remains operative unless and until the initiative is taken by the Opposition, either in this House or in another place, of trying to stop it. The negative Resolution produces great procedural difficulties, apart from anything else, and if we have a measure subject to a negative Resolution it means that the House has no opportunity of being able to say that it is an agreed measure, voted upon and approved by the whole House.
I therefore welcome the fact that in this Bill that procedure has been adopted, and I personally hope that the procedure on the affirmative Resolution in all matters, and most certainly in all matters of finance and matters affecting taxation, will come to be adopted in the House as a matter of major constitutional importance, and not, as the Liberal Party appears to think, as a matter of complete insignificance. I am very glad to think that my right hon. Friend, in the Second Reading debate, pointed out the weakness in Clause 5 as it stood. It is important that we should once again underline the fact that the credit for urging the Government to deal, as belatedly as they have done with this matter of post-war credits, is due to the Opposition. The specific Resolutions and measures laid before us under the Bill will together constitute an agreed act of the whole House.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I thank the hon. and learned Member for moving the Amendment, because it means that he accepts the principle of ours. I willingly accept the form of his Amendment, especially as it seems to assert more strongly than ours the rights of this House over another place in financial


matters. I am especially glad to do this so soon after the attacks which Lord Hailsham made in another place, upon myself and other hon. Members of this House, which were of such a nature that had they been made in this House about Members of another place they would unquestionably have been out of order.
Our reason for wanting the affirmative Resolution procedure has been made clear by my hon. Friend. In financial matters we want the House to maintain the maximum amount of control which is compatible with the rapid repayment of post-war credits and adjustment of hardship cases. We have not much sympathy for the desire of the Liberals to have it both ways, but if that pleases them it does not worry us.
The hon. and learned Member has said that there might be a little difficulty about the time-table, but I can assure him that in carrying out an agreed policy in this matter no delay will be caused by hon. Members on this side. I am glad that we have been able to end this little debate on that note. We were quite right to divide the House on Clause 1. Nonetheless, we are in complete agreement over the broad field of policy. I am glad that we end with the Government following the lead and example of the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 11, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 12.—[Mr. Simon.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. Do I understand that the Bill is said to be reported without Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There were no Amendments on Report.

Mr. Gordon Walker: We amended the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are taking the Report stage now, and as far as I know there are no Amendments so we can go straight on to the Third Reading.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I do not wish to dissent from the proposition that we should now proceed with the Report stage and, subsequently, with the Third Reading—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are no Amendments on Report, so I have to go straight to the Third Reading.

Mr. Fletcher: I would not wish to dissent from the proposition either that we should proceed to the Report stage, on which there are no Amendments, or to the Third Reading, but it is right to say, merely for the record and in the interests of hon. Members, that as I understand Erskine May and the Standing Orders—although I have not looked at them recently—it is in accordance with the doctrine of the House not to proceed to the further stages of a finance Bill on the same day, except by agreement. I wish merely to make it clear that this appears to be a departure from precedent.
I make these remarks only to underline the earnest desire of the Opposition to expedite in every possible way the passage of the Bill into law.

Mr. Simon: I should not like it to be thought for a moment that hon. Members on this side of the House were either discourteous to right hon. and hon. Members opposite or careless of the conventions and rights of the House of Commons. In fact it was agreed through the usual channels that we should proceed through all the remaining stages of the Bill today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — WAGES COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords] (changed to "TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOY MENT BILL [Lords]")

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(CONSIDERATION BY INDUS TRIAL COURT OF REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY CERTAIN ORGANISATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS.)

In any case where it is represented to the Minister by an organisation or association of the employers or of the workers in any trade industry or section of a trade or industry in respect of which terms and conditions of employment have been settled by an agreement that such organisation or association represents a substantial proportion of the employers or workers in such trade industry or section but is not represented by the organisation or association of employers or workers as the case may be which is a party to the agreement, the Minister may refer the representation so made to the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court shall consider the matter and may make such recommendations with respect thereto as they think fit.— [Mr. Page.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With the new Clause we can take the Amendment to Clause 8, in page 6, line 37.

Mr. Page: The new Clause and the Amendment relate to Clause 8 as it stands. The Clause was added in Committee in pursuance of an assurance given by my right hon. Friend during the Second Reading debate and in pursuance of discussions and agreements reached between himself and the T.U.C. and the B.E.C. Subsection (1) of that Clause provides that where a claim is reported to the Minister that terms or conditions of employment have been agreed or awarded and are not being observed, the Minister can take steps to settle the claim, and that if he fails by those steps to settle it he has to refer the matter to the Industrial Court.
In order to give the Minister power to refer a claim to the Industrial Court, subsection (1, b) states that the parties to the agreement or award must represent a substantial proportion of the employers and of the workers in the trade affected.
In Committee, in referring to that point, my right hon. Friend said:
The second important point in paragraph (b) is that 'the parties to the agreement' must represent 'a substantial proportion: Again, that follows the Industrial Disputes Order and again it is not defined. It is a matter for the judgment of the Industrial Court. I think that the Committee will agree that that must be so, because what is or is not substantial must very much depend on the trade and, in particular, on the degree of organisation that exists within the trade. In a poorly organised industry perhaps 10 or 15 per cent. might conceivably be a substantial proportion, whereas in a much more highly organised trade the Industrial Court may decide that a larger percentage would he appropriate"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 9th April, 1959; c. 8.]
6.0 p.m.
The new Clause and the Amendment are intended to ensure that it is a matter for the judgment of the Industrial Court whether the parties to an agreement or an award represent a substantial proportion of the industry, and that the decision is not a kind of hole-and-corner business between those who already have a vested interest on the voluntary joint councils. The Clause is an effort to ensure that there is a fully representative body before any claim arises. It will be no use proceeding to the Industrial Court with a claim only for the Court eventually to say, "The parties before us do not represent a substantial proportion of the industry." The new Clause seeks to avoid that happening and, furthermore, to provide that even before negotiations commence upon an agreement, or proceedings commence for an award, there shall be as much certainty as possible that the parties represent a substantial proportion of the industry.
The new Clause seeks to ensure that, by requiring the Minister to consider any representations made to him by representatives of one side or the other, they represent a substantial proportion, and to refer those representations for decision to the Industrial Court. If an association, federation, or union claims to represent a substantial part of an industry but is not at present on the voluntary joint council it should be permitted to put its case to the Minister, and the Minister should then refer the point to the Industrial Court for a decision. I appreciate that these voluntary joint councils are intended to be purely voluntary, but certain bodies ought not to be allowed to usurp power on those councils—and I use that


rather strong phrase intentionally to describe what I believe is happening in some cases at present.
I now turn to the Amendment. In Committee, when referring to the question whether a party represented a substantial proportion of the industry, my right hon. Friend said that that should be a matter for the judgment of the Industrial Court. I would ask him how, as Clause 8 stands at present, the Industrial Court can decide that question if it does not hear the case of those who are questioning the claim of some other association to represent a substantial proportion of the industry.
As I read Clause 8 as it is drafted, I construe it that an industrial court has to consider whether a claim which comes before it is well-founded. It has, therefore, to consider whether the parties to the dispute or issue, or claim—whatever we are pleased to call it—represent a substantial portion of the industry. Unless there is some simple machinery such as I suggest in the Amendment, an industrial court will have before it only those parties claiming in the first instance, because they were parties to the claim or dispute, that they represent a substantial proportion of the industry and that nobody else does. No one else will be able to come before the court and make their representations and put their claim to represent a portion of the industry.
I wish to explain the position by means of an example, and I take the example of the Federation of Master Builders. That Federation was formed in 1943 after the Emergency Regulations took effect. It has been excluded from the National Joint Council for the Building Industry. That council was formed as long ago as 1920 and was, as it were, crystallised in its membership when the Emergency Regulations took effect. The Federation of Master Builders has been refused representation on the Joint Council in spite of repeated applications. Not only has it been refused representation, but it has been refused even prior consultation with those on the Joint Council. So a body which represents no less than 11,500 employers in the building trade is refused any sort of representation or any kind of consultation with the Joint Council which has to decide the terms and conditions of employment in the building trade.
Not only does this federation comprise 11,500 employers, but it is established over nine regions in the country. It has 100 provincial branches and 36 area branches in the London region. It represents a substantial portion of the industry.
I know that an argument against both the new Clause and the Amendment is that industry should be free to settle its arrangements for negotiating terms and conditions of employment. But one must remember that under the provisions of this Clause those who are not parties to any claim, dispute or issue are to be bound by the terms of whatever agreement or award is reached.
More than that. When it is said that an industry must be free to settle its own arrangements, what do we mean by "industry" in this connection? Certainly the Federation of Master Builders, for example, representing such a substantial portion of that industry, is not in any way free. It is excluded from all negotiations. It seems to me that what we mean by industry being free to make its own arrangements is that the people who were on the Joint Council when the Emergency Regulations took effect back in 1940 are the people who are to arrange all conditions and terms of employment, because no change in the constitution of the joint council can apparently be made.
How long does this go on? How lone is the membership of the Joint Council to be frozen in that way? 1 have given an example from the employers' side, but one would not have to look far to find examples from the workers' side, where unions representing workers are not admitted to the voluntary Joint Councils. Without the proposals contained in my new Clause and Amendment it seems to me that the Joint Councils are something of a closed shop and that there should be some procedure to enable a body of representatives, an association, a federation or a union, or whatever it may be, to have its case heard; to come to the Minister and say, "We believe we represent a substantial part of the industry, will you put our case before the industrial court and let it decide whether or not we represent a substantial portion of the industry?"
I am not asking that the Minister should become involved in this matter by making a decision. I merely ask that he pass the


representations on to the Industrial Court. There is no compulsion about this on the Minister or the Court. It is a question of passing on the representations so that the case is heard. At present the case is heard by no one. An association which has a substantial membership has no independent person to whom it can appeal. It can apply to the members of the Joint Council with a sort of plea, "Please let us in on these negotiations", and usually that is met by a blank refusal. This new Clause and the Amendment would give a measure of justice and fair dealing to representatives of industries and enable them to prove that they represent a portion of industry.

Mr. William Shepherd: I beg to second the Motion.
I realise the difficulties with which we are confronted in this issue, because in reality this trouble arises not within the sphere of Government competence but is due to some internal difficulty facing trade associations and trade unions in various industries. However, the difficulty is real and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy us on the point.
The requirement outlined by my hon. Friend is in my view a question of elementary justice. None of the people I know in trade and industry is anxious to avoid being required to comply with conditions which are generally applicable. I am sure that my hon. Friend has no desire to do so, and I do not wish to help anybody who wishes to dodge the general level of wages and conditions. It is no part of the case advanced by those who support this Clause and Amendment to assist anybody in that way. But those individuals and associations who feel that they ought to be consulted, and are prevented from being consulted, naturally feel aggrieved that they have to comply with something when they have no right at all and no facility for putting forward their point of view.
I hope my hon. Friend will deal with this matter in a manner which will give satisfaction to those people. I must confess a personal interest. For a long time I have been associated with the Chair Framemakers' Association, and our association naturally wishes to have a say in the determination of wages and conditions. But we as an association are refused

affiliation to the British Furniture Manufacturers. They say, for whatever reasons they may think fit, "We do not want to have you" However much we want to take part, even in an indirect way, in the determination of these affairs, we are not allowed to do so because, as the Chair Framemakers' Association, we are denied affiliation to the British Furniture Manufacturers.
Not only, therefore, are the builders affected, but an association with which I am connected is affected, and there are many organisations throughout the country representing both employers and employees which are in a similar position. I appreciate all the arguments raised by the trade associations about the undesirability of encouraging splinter movements, and this of course is the view expressed by the trade union side—

Mr. Frederick Lee: No.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put forward his view, and I should not deny its merit.
At the same time, the law ought to be changed, seeing that we are now giving statutory effect to these provisions, so that all those bodies entitled to do so by virtue of being in a trade should in some form be in a position to be consulted. They should not be put in a position where they have to acquiesce in a process in which they have no say. Their existence in the trade and the established nature of the trade clearly justifies their right to a say in the decisions which are made.
It is entirely from that point of view, which is limited, but one which I believe to be a matter of elementary justice, that my hon. Friend and myself advance this plea to the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the proposed new Clause and the Amendment, or some variant, to enable those organisations at present denied elementary justice to have their rightful say in determining these matters.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lee: The case advanced by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) sounds eminently reasonable, and hon. Members on this side do not wish to see injustice done to any section of industry, either employers or employees. There have been many instances of disputes within an industry on both


sides about who should enjoy representation. Therefore, it should not be thought that those who cannot agree with the hon. Members for Crosby and Cheadle wish to continue something which may have become an anomaly or something similar.
I counsel the Parliamentary Secretary that merely because an association of employers in the building industry is being excluded from the counsels of the National Joint Council for that industry does not, as we see it, call for legislation in order to put right something which they consider to be wrong. We received a copy of lie suggested new Clause and Amendment from that association and we have examined the arguments adduced in favour of them. The hon. Member for Crosby gave the impression that there is some reason why there cannot be an adjustment within the employers' side of the industry in the present representation of the National Joint Council. I may be quite wrong about this, I do not pretend to know the ruling on the employers side. But I do not know why we should necessarily consider that the present representation of employers on that council is similar to the law of Medes and Persians and cannot be changed.
There was much in what the hon. Member said in that there has been a growth in certain directions since the war-time provisions have been in operation and therefore it may well be that, purely on membership, there is a case for particular employers to be represented on the council. I am not trying to make out a case against that. But surely if that be so, it is something which should be argued among the employers' associations within a particular industry. As I see it, there is no case for forcing a change in the representation on the employers' side by means of legislation.

Mr. Page: That is just the point. How is it to be argued? In the case which I have quoted there have been efforts to argue it between the employers and they have never got together. How is it to be argued between them?

Mr. Lee: I understand that there is a dilemma. I am saying that a Government that tried to enforce a certain ratio of representation between certain types of employers would find themselves in grave difficulty.
It could be said that one would need a percentage of membership in order to qualify for a position on the council. A percentage of membership is very fluid as it changes rapidly as one section of an industry contracts or another expands. What does one do then? Does one start again and legislate to exclude from the employers' side somebody to whom a seat has been allocated in favour of someone else who has now another 2 per cent. of membership and is therefore above the minimum level demanded? Because of the wide range of industry covered by these arrangements, once that was begun the House would be able to do precious little except alter agreed legislation in order to cover all the changes in industry.
There are times when this argument would suit me very well. My right hon. Friends and myself have been pressing the Minister of Labour for some time to do something to get recognition for the Bank Employees Association which, as we are aware, has a percentage of membership of well over 50 per cent. of the employees in the banking industry. I would like to see recognition of such a strong association of employees. I recognise that if we tried to push this to the point of making the Minister the responsible person for saying to the employers, in the case that I am arguing, that there is a percentage of "X" and therefore you must recognise this association and deal with it, the result would be that while they would have to accept recognition there would be a "dead pan" approach to the negotiations that had to take place.
I do not like the legislative approach to the problem. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows of the representations made by headmasters for membership of the Burnham Committee. We have had letters from them and one sees their point. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if we are to accept the basis of the Government determining the allocation of seats, either to employers or employees, within the negotiating machinery of a given industry we are getting into dangerous waters.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is saying that we are asking the Government to make this decision. When I first spoke I recognised the difficulty that this was


largely a question between trade associations. The Amendment does not ask the Government; it asks the Industrial Court to decide.

Mr. Lee: The point I am making is that the hon. Member is asking the Government to enshrine in legislation that the power to accord seats on the negotiating machinery of any industry shall be determined by this House. We are being asked to agree that the Industrial Court shall be given this power and therefore we are being asked to say that we shall enshrine this in legislation and determine the allocation of seats in the way I was indicating.
I feel that the Ministry of Labour does a lot of work that is never known to this House in trying to bring pressure to bear where there is a basis of obvious fairness for the question of representation. While conciliation officers do a lot of work in this field, I am not convinced they do enough. I never will think so until we get what we know to be a proper and fair allocation.
I am not trying to say that there is anything unfair in what the hon. Member for Cheadle and the hon. Member for Crosby said. I thought the case was eminently reasonable and, in justice, a very good argument was put forward. What I am saying is that once one has this very wide open door one does not facilitate good negotiations by forcing one side to meet the other when in fact they are opposed to meeting. There would be a blank refusal to any proposals which came from people who were not welcome on the negotiating machinery.
For those reasons, I do not think that legislation is the right medium. Whilst saying that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a case for the Ministry doing everything in its power to ensure that there is adequate and proper representation of bodies—especially in the case that has been cited where there are 11,500 employees who are compelled to accept decisions of the Industrial Court and yet have no voice in the negotiations—on the negotiating machinery.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whilst not being able to accept such an Amendment, will agree that the Ministry should see whether there is any way in which it can do more than it does now to ensure

that where a proper and fair case is established pressure can be brought to bear on the people within the negotiating machinery to ensure proper and adequate representation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): I have listened with interest to the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) produced with his usual clarity. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) spoke frankly about the difficulties within industries over questions of this kind. Although I do not go the whole way with the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) in his suggestion that my hon. Friends were trying to achieve too much by legislation, I am the first to agree about the legislative shortcomings, and I have said so on a number of different occasions about a number of different cases.
If I might review what I understand to be the object of the new Clause, it is to ensure that an organisation of workers or employers who are not represented on a negotiating body which has made an agreement should have the opportunity to put its point of view, first to my right hon. Friend, who may then have occasion to refer it to the Industrial Court.
The Clause gives my right hon. Friend the power, if he so chooses, to refer the representations which have been made to him to the Industrial Court. The effect of the Amendment, as I understand it, would be that the representations made through my right hon. Friend to the Industrial Court would be made with the object of helping the Industrial Court to make up its mind about the various criteria for a claim, in particular the criterion in Clause 8, Section 1 (b), whether or not the negotiating parties are, in fact, a substantial proportion of the employers or workers in the trade.
It is clear that the matters which my hon. Friend has been speaking about are fairly well known. While it is not for me to suggest what should be done, the Industrial Court would be bound to consider all relevant matters before it came to its decision as to whether the negotiating bodies did, in the words of the Bill," represent a substantial proportion" or not.
6.30 p.m.
A further difficulty about the new Clause and the Amendment is that even if the so-called splinter body, of whom a number of hon. Members have spoken, were shown itself to be a substantial proportion, this would in no way deflect from the still possible judgment of the Industrial Court that the negotiating bodies represented a substantial proportion themselves. As I see it, the information which might reach the Industrial Court through my right hon. Friend would, in many cases, possibly in every case, be irrelevant, because its task under Clause 8 is to make up its mind, taking, as, no doubt, intelligent men would, every consideration into account, whether the negotiating bodies who have made the agreement are, in fact, a substantial proportion of the trade.
Therefore. although I cannot agree to accept the Clause and the Amendment, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that, in my view, the kind of considerations which he would like the Industrial Court to take into account—although, again, none of us should presume to make up our minds what the Court will take account of—would be bound to be in the mind of the Court if it were trying to decide the matter. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend might be willing to withdraw the new Clause on the assurance I have given that the important matter which the Industrial Court would have to decide is the positive question of whether a substantial portion of the trade is represented by the negotiating bodies. Naturally, the Court would examine all the relevant facts to reach that conclusion.

Mr. Reader Harris: Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say how the Industrial Court will ever know whether the organisation represented on the employees' side "represents a substantial proportion" of the persons employed? If a minority organisation which did not have representation on the employees' side of, say, a National Joint Council were not represented on the employees' side, how would it ever get its views before the court? In practice, what happens is that if something is referred to the Court, the employees' side of the negotiating machinery puts its case and never thinks

of raising the question of whom it represents. It merely assumes that the Court will take it that it represents everybody or a substantial majority of those concerned.
One of the great difficulties in all this matter is for the minority organisations to get their point of view put forward to the powers that be. This is a permanent and serious problem, not only in industry, but in local government, also. We have had it in the fire services and in the teaching profession. The big organisations, not unnaturally, take the view, "What we have, we hold. We want to speak for everybody and we do not want any other people poking their noses into it. We are quite capable of speaking for the whole of the employees concerned." Whether they do speak for them all may be a matter of argument. The great problem is the minority organisation which may have a large proportion of the people who want to get their voices heard.
Is the Minister saying that he will make it incumbent upon the Court, first, to inquire into the credentials of the people who appear before it? If so, I am in favour of that. Suppose, however, that the Court is not satisfied that the spokesmen speak for a substantial majority. Will it say, "Go away. We will not listen to you. Come back again when you can assure us that you represent all the people concerned and that there are no minority voices which are not being heard"?
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. This problem is not confined merely to the non-T.U.C. unions against the T.U.C. unions. These problems arise even within the T.U.C. itself. There was an enormous strike in the docks over this very problem. It is a nettle which the Labour Party has never felt able to grasp. I do not think that the T.U.C. has felt able to grasp it, nor has the Conservative Party. To decide who should be listened to and who should have the right to speak for his members and what represents a "substantial proportion" of them is an enormous problem. If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can solve it, he will be doing an enormous service to get peace in industry between the workers.

Mr. Lee: It is quite false to give the impression that X number of trade unions have always been in existence and always will be, that no new ones can ever come into being and, hey presto, that is the end of the story. A great number of the present unions affiliated to the T.U.C., with full recognition in their industries, started with the same problem. This is an ever-changing story. It is not the case that after, say, 1959 no new people shall be accepted. This is something which goes on constantly and it is not true to say that one is up against a brick wall.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Member is quite right. This is an ever-changing problem, but, my goodness, it changes slowly, so slowly that the Engineering Officers' Telecommunications Association simply had to go out of existence because it could not do anything about it and so slowly that the National Association of Schoolmasters, with 17,000 members, has still, thirteen years after the war, not been able to do anything about it. It is something which goes too slowly, in all conscience. It goes so slowly that somebody ought to do something about it.
Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has put forward a practical suggestion. I like the idea of making the Court decide who shall have the right to speak. After all, a court of this kind would be the most appropriate body to decide, better than a Government Department, which might be accused of political bias.
I do not know whether the whole subject can be settled in the Bill. It is one which, I suppose, the Government want to get through quickly and, if I judge the Opposition aright, hon. Members opposite would like to see it get through as quietly as possible. I hope, however, that I do not misjudge them; perhaps they have no strong views. If there were an opportunity of doing something about this matter in the Bill, it would be a very good thing, because this is a problem which is a canker in the trade union world, not simply in the T.U.C. world, but in the trade union world generally. Somebody, some day, must be put in the position of deciding who can and who cannot speak for their members.
My hon. Friend has put forward a practical suggestion to which, I hope, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give serious thought.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Where are we going? This discussion is developing into the whole question of recognition. The issue is the relatively narrow point of whether, when an issue has been decided, it shall be made to apply to all the people in a certain industry. That is the simple issue. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) heard the earlier part of the discussion, but he has gone on to something far wider than the Amendment.
This is a question of whether the relatively narrow point made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is a valid one, because a body of employers not being represented would be forced to recognise an award; but the whole question of recognition in the negotiation of an award is not the subject of the Bill at this stage. It is a much wider issue and bears no relevance to it at this stage.

Major Sir Frank Markham: This question has great relevance. I support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that there should be introduced into the Bill a Clause that would help to get certainty on the question of who should represent the employees at the Court. It has already been made clear to the House that while the unions are in a state of change and, we hope, progress, the changes in the authoritative representation are so slow as to be somewhat more than slow.
The point has been made about the way that the National Association of Schoolmasters has been excluded from all representation in educational matters on important tribunals and councils. Important as that is, however, it is perhaps overshadowed by the archaic state in British Railways, where today the National Union of Railwaymen is sitting back on precedents from half a century ago, refusing to allow any representation at all of the A.E.U., or of the National Union of Vehicle Workers, on bodies such as management committees of works.
In the case of the railways, that one union not only claims priority over the others, but refuses to go into prior consultation with them. It is a great wrong, and I am sure that the trade union representatives who are present recognise it as such, that one union by almost hereditary or prescriptive right should


refuse to allow any other union within a certain group of workmen to speak for them. It would be a welcome addition to the Bill and valuable for the country at large if the Bill empowered the Court to decide who shall represent the workers and let them have the broadest possible measure of scope.

Mr. Wood: I should like to clear up a little of the confusion which seems to have arisen. The Clause and the Amendment, if accepted, would not do anything to solve the problem to which a number of my hon. Friends have drawn attention. All that they would do would be in certain cases—and only in certain cases, because my right hon. Friend might not refer all representations made to him under the new Clause—to ensure that the views of these so-called splinter bodies would be made known to the Industrial Court.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) said how important it was that the Bill should require the Industrial Court to decide these matters and my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) said that the Government were not the body who should decide, but that the Industrial Court should do so. That is exactly the view of my right hon. Friend as expressed in Clause 8, subsection (1, b) under which the Industrial Court must be satisfied, among other things, that
the parties to the agreement…are or represent organisations of employers and organisations of workers…and represent…a substantial proportion…
Therefore, the only difference between my hon. Friends and myself is that they suggest that certain information should be given to the Industrial Court to help it to make up its mind about that. I have suggested, and my view remains, that such information as could be given about these things, the existence of which is very well known, would not assist the Industrial Court, which can perfectly well make up its mind. I insist to my hon. Friends, however, that it is the Industrial Court and no other body that has to make up its mind which is the relevant negotiating body in this case.

Mr. Page: I cannot express satisfaction, but I hope that we might be able to come back to this matter on some

other occasion. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8.—(SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AS TO RECOGNISED TERMS AND CON DITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.)

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, in page 6, line 44. after "Minister", to insert:
provided that (in relation to terms or conditions applicable to a worker employed by a local authority) the date so determined may be a date prior to that on which the employer was first informed of the said claim but so that such date shall not be earlier than that from which the recognised terms or conditions became effective".
This Amendment deals with a most important matter, to which the Minister should give attention. As the Bill is worded, it gives a premium to the recalcitrant employer. It means that the employer who does not recognise an award until he is driven to do so by representations which are made to him gains considerably over his fellow-employers who honourably observe a negotiated award from its initial date. That is what the position really is, because the Bill says that until the claim is made, and the Court has to decide when it is made, the award can only be dated back to that date. This seems to me to give a premium to employers who want to say, "We will not recognise this award. We will ignore it until such time as a claim is made to, and awarded by, the Industrial Disputes Tribunal."
6.45 p.m.
The only thing open to a trade union will be, on the very day of the award, to notify every employer of its members that the award is then payable, so ensuring that those members did not lose any pay. It must be remembered that this is something negotiated between the two sides. It is not an enforced settlement, but an award on wages or conditions payable or applicable on a certain date.
The Amendment is limited to local authorities, as I understand that the Minister would be in some difficulty were it made applicable to industry as a whole. That is the only reason for the words in parenthesis. The brackets make it applicable only to local authorities, but if the Minister wishes to take them out I shall be only too happy to agree to that course being taken.
It has been said that these words are very similar to those in the Industrial Disputes Order, 1951, but there is a material difference. The Order stated that the date should be not earlier than the date on which the dispute arose, and the Industrial Court almost invariably said that the dispute arose virtually when the award became payable. In that way, the Court could so date an award, or enforce one already made, as to give it the same date as for general application. It was usually done in that way.
The Industrial Court will now be expressly prohibited from doing that. It must ascertain at what stage the trade union represented to the employer that he was not observing the award, and claiming observance. That means that there will probably be disputes about the date of the letter, how the representations were made, whether they were sent in a registered envelope for safe delivery—all sorts of things can be put forward which will make it quite difficult for the union to establish its case. That will operate only to the advantage of the employer who wants to avoid implementing an award.
It might be argued that all employers will not know of awards when they are made so that it will be rather difficult to backdate enforcement. That argument is very thin. It is the duty of every good employer to know the terms and conditions of employment in his given area and industry, and he could claim ignorance only by admitting that he was not a very good employer.
As I say, the position is materially different from that under the Industrial Disputes Order, and I ask the Minister to consider the matter as a whole. Under that Order, the Court could make an award operative from the date that it was made generally applicable, and it relieved the unions of the tremendous amount of administrative work involved in making sure that each individual employer applied the terms of the award.
In local authority affairs the time taken to negotiate is important—and it is notoriously long. Very often, the negotiating employers are sufficiently democratically inclined to want to report back to their constituent bodies before a decision is reached. In those circumstances, any award made should be

operative from a certain date, and a retrospective date is very often deliberately put in. It is not that we like a retrospective date, but it is necessary for organisational reasons.
As the Bill is drafted, trade unions would not be able to claim retrospective implementation of an award, and would be able to register a dispute only from the time the employers refused to recognise the award. That might be two or three months later and would be a very material factor.
I ask the Minister to regard this as a point of very serious substance. Neither side wishes to bestow a premium on bad employers. It is essential for peace in industry that negotiated conditions should be recognised, and the few who do not recognise them ought not to be allowed to get away with it. The Minister says that he cannot accept the Amendment in its present form, because if he made it applicable to local authorities it would put him in an invidious position with other employers. If that is so, the answer would be to take out the bracketed words and make the Amendment applicable to all employers.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I should like to support the Amendment and, in doing so, to thank my hon. Friend for all the trouble that he has taken over negotiations with the local authorities. I am only sorry that we have not been able to reach some agreement before now, but the tendency of the Ministry has been to underestimate the problem. There is very real proof of the danger of recalcitrant local authorities playing for time and not immediately implementing an award. In their case, it would certainly help if the principle of retrospection was formally written into the Bill.
The trouble is that local authority employees do not strike or withdraw their labour, but acceptance of the retrospective principle would do much to ensure happier relations. We do not want to destroy the whole of the agreement reached by my right hon. Friend the Minister, and by my hon. Friend with the other people involved. We only wish to safeguard the position of local authority employees, and I hope that we can have some assurance on that score.

Mr. Reader Harris: I very strongly support this Amendment, as it concerns a


matter of very great importance to local authority employees. I suspect that it is not of quite so much importance in industry generally, because the big industrial trade unions have tremendous power. If a small employer, who is, perhaps, what is known as a "non-federated" employer, fails to observe a national award, the big powerful trade unions can deal with him in their own way by withdrawing labour, calling a strike, etc.
That does not apply in the local authority world, where the trade unions, or the associations that organise local authority employees, cannot so easily call out their members on strike. That sort of thing does not happen in that sphere. I should, therefore, like to know what the Minister intends to do about the local authority that fails to apply a national award. Further, I will give him an instance, and ask for a specific answer as to what he would do in the case.
The example is drawn from the fire services—and before my hon. Friend says that they are not covered by the Bill let me say that it is only a matter of time before they are. The Home Office has notified both the employers' and employees' associations that the 1947 Act is to be amended by repealing Section 17. In a few months or so, therefore, the fire services will come within the scope of the Bill.
In the middle of 1957, negotiations began for an increase in the pay of local authority chief fire officers and assistant chief fire officers. The negotiations continued until about March, 1958, when an agreement for an increase in pay was reached, backdated to 1st January, 1958. As soon as possible after that agreement had been reached in March, 1958, the appropriate recommendation was referred for formal approval to the Home Secretary. He sat on it for the best part of nine or ten months, because it was all part of Government policy for curbing inflation. It was bound up with the credit squeeze.
The Home Secretary gave it his approval in December, 1958, and formal notification of that approval went to local authorities on 31st December, 1958. About February of this year the Scottish South-Western Fire Area Joint Committee announced that it did not intend to honour the award. It still has not done

so, nor can the employers' side of the Joint National Council get it to honour the agreement.
Let us suppose that under Clause 8 (4) the matter was referred to the Court. The Court would be bound to find in favour of the employees, but the only retrospection that could be given would be to February, 1959. That would mean that the fire master and the assistant fire master—as they are called in Scotland—in the South-Western Fire Area Joint Committee would receive their increases in pay only from February, 1959, whereas every other officer of equivalent rank in Great Britain would get theirs from 1st January, 1958. That would be a gross injustice to those two men, but exactly the same thing could happen to the chief officers of other local authority departments everywhere.
As I see it, an injustice would be done, and I ask the Minister how he would deal with it. The best way would be to accept something in the nature of this Amendment, so ably proposed and seconded respectively by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball). I should be very grateful for an answer, as this matter is being followed closely in the local authority world.
Retrospection can be dynamite. We saw what happened when the police did not get retrospection a year or two ago. In that case, of course, the whole of the police force was involved, but when it was found that the police were not getting the retrospection to which they were entitled the whole of the House rose in anger, and the Minister had to do something, even though it meant legislation. What is good for the many is good for the few. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is very wise, sensible and humane, will want to do something about it.

Mr. Wood: As the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) has said, the Amendment would affect only claims concerning local authorities. Unless he removed his brackets, it would not be available to other employers, and I seemed to detect in his mind a certain difficulty in justifying this distinction. It would be possible to justify it, of course, if the circumstances of local authority claims were in some way different in kind


from all the other claims that this Amendment at present excludes. But, in fact, they are not. Similar agreements or awards might be retrospectively applied in industry as well as in local government. I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House as a whole agree with that. It shows some of the difficulties of trying to act in the way that the hon. Member suggests and merely limits this availability to local authorities.

Mr. Pargiter: I am happy that it should not be limited. I understood that the Minister would be in difficulties if it were not limited. If the Minister says that he does not want it limited and will accept it on the wider basis, I should be most happy to withdraw the words in brackets.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Wood: I will come to that point. All that I have done so far is to show that the distinction which the hon. Gentleman is drawing is unreal, and I think that he agrees with that.
The second thing which the hon. Gentleman suggested was that there is in the wording of the Bill a rather more restrictive attitude than there was in the original wording. My right hon. Friend and I have examined this matter carefully, and I cannot see that in practice the apparently greater laxity of the wording of the old Industrial Disputes Order led to a greater degree of retrospection. I have been into one or two important cases in this matter about which local authorities feel very strongly.
One aspect which was stressed in Committee by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was the need for discipline so that claims are made at the earliest possible moment. I think that the hon. Member for Southall will agree with that. If it is not laid down that a claim should be put in at the earliest possible moment, claims will drag on for a long time. In such cases it would obviously be important to expect retrospection.
To come to the general point made by the hon. Member for Southall, I admit that he has made a convincing case for retrospection in certain instances. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) suggested

certain matters in which, without retrospection, it is possible that great injustice would be done. However, I am faced with a very practical argument. It is the argument to which the hon. Member for Southall drew my attention. I am convinced, for reasons which I have already given, that it would be wrong to have a special procedure for local authorities alone because their claims are not of a different kind from claims concerning the rest of industry for which the procedure would not be available.
The matter to be considered, therefore, is the one which the hon. Gentleman wanted me to consider, namely, whether it is possible to remove the brackets and accept the principle of the Amendment as it would then stand. Here I am in a practical difficulty with which I am sure the House will sympathise. On Second Reading, just before Christmas, my right hon. Friend announced his intention of having discussions with various sections of industry and with the local authority interests about the introduction into the Bill later of a Clause dealing with issues. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those discussions took place and resulted in the new Clause 8 which the hon. Gentleman is now seeking to amend.
As I think the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) made clear in Committee, Clause 8 has the general agreement of industry. That general agreement was expressed in those discussions. If it is now suggested that the procedure and conditions should be changed, then I am convinced that the Clause would not continue to have the general agreement of industry. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that this is the compelling practical ground which makes it impossible at this stage to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: This is the second time within a week in which we have had the distressing spectacle of having to watch the working of a Parliamentary Secretary's mind when he is struggling with this sort of issue. I expressed on a former occasion my complete trust in the sincerity of the Parliamentary Secretary, which I know is the general feeling of the House. I am bound to say, however, that I am disappointed that, when good and evil are struggling in his mind, somehow or other he always seems in the end to come down on the wrong


side. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is most unfair to jump on the casual statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) that he would not mind if the brackets were taken out of the Amendment and say, "I cannot do that. That would upset other people who are kept out of the arrangement by the insertion of the brackets", and then to say, "After all, we have considered it and although these people will not be affected by the Amendment, I cannot accept it if the bracket; remain in".
The position of local authorities is quite different from that of industry. All the employers' associations on the local authority side are in favour of the Amendment, and they do not want an arrangement which suits them to be imposed on people who say that they cannot work it. The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) mentioned the fire master and the assistant fire master in the Scottish fire service who are being denied an advance in salary which is enjoyed by every other officer of similar rank in Great Britain because other authorities agreed to the award as soon as it was made and agreed to the date which was inserted in the award. This does not happen only to people in gaudy uniforms, like fire masters and assistant masters. It can happen to the ordinary lengthman employed on the highways by an urban council in a remote part of the country.
Local authorities have been striving in recent years to negotiate wages on a national basis. When I was a young member of the National Union of Teachers, we had to negotiate with 319 separate local education authorities for elementary education with no national negotiating body at all. The policy on both the employers' and employees' side has been to have a body that will make decisions on behalf of the nation to submit to the Minister of Education. The same thing has happened with regard to all grades in local authority services.
It is notorious that recently authorities—this is not confined to authorities of one political complexion—have objected to what they regard as an unsuitable salary for a certain grade of officer. They have not objected that their officers are inferior to any other local authority officers—they would be the first to deny that they had an inferior engineer or

town clerk to that of any other authority—but that they did not think that a certain salary was the right salary, although it was nationally negotiated and agreed.
We are entitled to draw attention to the fact that generally local authority employees do not go on strike. They accept the award. Sometimes they accept it with grumbling, or they reject it, as they are entitled to. As was proved in the teaching profession last year, it is not always that the nationally agreed scale is accepted by the employers or employees when it goes back for consideration, but generally they are debarred by the nature of their occupation from striking. I do not think the public at large would desire that people in that position should have awards denied to them in practice which, if they were in a position to strike, would probably be agreed when the recalcitrant employer was faced with the position that the authority concerned would lose the labour it would like to employ.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there is a sufficient case for differentiating between local authority negotiations and those conducted in the ordinary way between employers and employed. Speaking as the President of the County Councils Association, I should not be prepared to support this Amendment, which has been put with the consent of the other local authorities associations, if it had tried to impose what suited its limited range of employment on the whole range of employment throughout the country when other employers said they could not work it. All we say is that this is the way which local government has taught us is the best way to secure the acceptance and observance of nationally negotiated agreements in the particular kind of employment we carry on. We put it no higher than that.
Although the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth chose a particular case, I have known of other cases in varying grades from town clerks down to lengthmen on the roads and men in charge of the scavenging wagon going round the streets, where an isolated authority or a few authorities have denied their employees the awards that a nationally negotiated agreement said were acceptable to them.
The last thing that will help local government employment in this country is getting some authorities which are paying less or more than an agreed national award. I can go back to the time when one county council wanted to get the county engineer of another county council. It asked the man it wanted to get how much would tempt him and then advertised the post at that salary. He was tempted and fell. That is the kind of thing that, down to within the last twenty years, made local administration exceedingly difficult. There is now so wide an agreement between local authorities that the individual arrangements between them and their employees do not make for the efficient working of the services and the widest possible range has been given to national negotiations and national agreements.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to recognise that this is a particular phase of employment which ought to be able, where it finds it important to have special arrangements made for it, to receive sympathetic attention from his Minister.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Lee: I ask the House to look at the context in which we are discussing this matter. This Bill changes its name every time I look at it. It started in a very different form from that we now see. The Minister of Labour said he would take what had been the issues question in the Industrial Disputes Order and move it in the form of an Amendment into this Bill. That was promised, and here it is.
It was pointed out from both sides that the need for bringing back the issues question of the Order was that in many industries non-federated employers were not honouring agreements arrived at between federated employers and trade unions. Therefore, they were getting an unfair advantage. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that and brought this question back. That is the background against which we are discussing this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) pointed out that the wording was not the wording of the Industrial Disputes Order. The wording of the Order was very different from that which appears in the Amendment. The wording of the Order appeared to give a greater degree of liberty to the Industrial Court to back-date an award.
That was the argument my hon. Friend adduced. The wording in the Order referred to an award
not being earlier than the date on which the dispute or issue to which the award relates first arose.
whereas the Clause says in subsection (4):
not earlier than the date on which,… the employer was first informed of the claim giving rise to the award…
In trying to introduce the issues principle, we are trying to ensure that no set of employers has an advantage over other employers in that they are not honouring an award agreed to in the industry. It also follows that before any question of this type goes before a tribunal or before the Industrial Court under the new dispensation the employer in question will be doing precisely what the Minister has tried to avoid by bringing back the issues machinery into this Bill. In other words, he will be seeking an advantage by not paying the recognised terms and conditions agreed to within the industry. If that is so, the Minister is not succeeding in carrying out the intentions he previously had. The wording is deficient; it is not as broad in its instructions to the Industrial Court as was the wording of the Industrial Disputes Order. To that extent the case which has been made is a good one.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is restricted by the discussions his right hon. Friend has had with various associations which have now agreed upon this form of words, but I put it to him that it is quite probable that those associations of employers, especially those who have always honoured their obligations as federated employers, and so on, have not understood the full significance of the difference in the wording of the Order and of the Bill. I am certain from the fact that it was they who instigated the whole procedure which resulted in the Minister scrapping the Industrial Disputes Order that they are determined to have justice between the federated and the non-federated employers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) takes the view that the County Councils Association, which may have inspired the Amendment, would not wish to intervene in trying to judge conditions of employment outside local government service. I am seized of that point, but I do not see


why a matter which is relevant to a local authority is any less relevant to industry itself.
There are many occasions upon which an employer throws the ball about for a month or two on a question raised with him by an employee. The employee may think that the employer is procrastinating somewhat but is looking in good faith at his application. It is possible that the employee himself would not refer the matter to his trade union for some considerable time after he had first raised the question with the employer. Therefore, I think that there is a point in the argument which has been adduced on both sides of the House, and I feel that had that argument been in the knowledge of the various associations with whom the Minister has been negotiating they would have taken a rather different view of it.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has been impressed by what he has heard. I know that he is probably not at this moment able to accept the wording of the Amendment and, for my part, I would prefer the Amendment, without the brackets, in its wider implications. I would, however, ask the hon. Gentleman to agree, before the Bill leaves us for another place—

Mr. Ede: It comes from another place. This is the last opportunity.

Mr. Lee: The point escaped me for the moment that this is a Lords Bill and that we are now faced with the fact that there is no further stage at which the Government could introduce this type of Amendment—I do not say the actual wording of this Amendment—because, as I have said, I prefer the words without the brackets. Therefore, I cannot ask the Minister, as I was about to do, whether he could agree to the insertion of some form of words in another place to meet the point under discussion.

Mr. Ede: If the Government were willing to accept the idea but were not quite sure of the exact formula to be adopted, they could then arrange to have the Commons Amendment amended in another place and sent back to us from there.

Mr. Lee: That is the answer. If the Minister is seized of the importance of the principle—I am sure neither the mover

nor the seconder of the Amendment is tied to the words as they are printed—he could agree to have a further look at this matter. If I am right in saying that the people with whom the negotiations have taken place were not seized of the importance of this point, he could ask his right hon. Friend if he would follow the procedure so nimbly laid down by my right hon. Friend.
If such an Amendment could be introduced before the Bill becomes an Act, I am sure that this would satisfy both those who have supported the Amendment today and, I believe, the people with whom the Minister of Labour has been in negotiation. Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he would reconsider that point, and use the machinery outlined by my right hon. Friend to introduce the principle, if he cannot accept the wording of the Amendment?

Mr. Wood: I, too, am grateful for the nimbleness of the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has suggested to us. I feel sure that from what he has said and what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has endorsed that there may be other opportunities of putting this matter, in his opinion, right. I regret that the right hon. Member for South Shields and I have recently found ourselves on opposite sides. He claims to be on the right side and to see the good and gives me the other side.
I should like very much to help the House. My right hon. Friend has, as I said when I first spoke, considered this matter extremely carefully. He has met, as hon. Members know, a deputation of local authority interests which came to see him and pressed its case. But I am still left with the dilemma which I have already put to the House. I think that it would be generally agreed that there would be very considerable difficulties at this moment, in view of what has gone before, in giving this procedure to industry as a whole. Therefore, it is a question of whether or not, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, some valid and fair distinction can be made between the claims on the local authority side and claims from the rest of industry.
This, I think, is an arguable matter. My own view is that it would be difficult and unfair to make such a distinction and I cannot see that I could possibly justify


the discrimination for which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton asked. Therefore, I must regretfully say that, even though these future constitutional possibilities exist, I cannot agree that, after the very careful consideration he has given to this, my right hon. Friend can change his mind about the difficulty of applying this generally to industry. If he is not going to do that, I cannot see sufficient reason for making the discrimination for which many hon. Members have cogently argued in favour of the local authorities. That is why I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment or give an undertaking to accept the principle later.

Mr. S. P. Viant: I regret, as an old trade unionist, hearing the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are here seeking to set up machinery whereby differences can be easily smoothed out. On both sides of the House it has been admitted that wrongs arise from the present procedure. Evidence has been submitted of the manner in which local authorities from time to time do injustice to their employees. I know the difficulty of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I submit that it would be wrong for the House to give consent to this legislation when it knows quite well that wrongs will arise from it.
If we are to make the position easier by the Bill we must ensure that we remove the possibilities of wrongs arising. From my experience of local authorities one often gets a section of a local authority which is not in agreement with a national agreement which has been arrived at. Unfortunately, from time to time they are in the majority and in a position to hold up the award. This machinery should ensure that that position cannot arise again.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to give to the House this evening what it considers to be essential but is prepared to accept the principle, we will stay our hand, but to pass legislation, well knowing the difficulties that are likely to arise from it and not to take a course to ensure that those difficulties are avoided, is quite unforgivable.
Those who are engaged in ordinary industry are in a position to apply sanctions, but those who are engaged in local authority work are not in that position. Even

if they were, this would be most undesirable. I agree that if the Amendment were accepted we should be discriminating, but we would be discriminating in a worth-while manner. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take the opportunity offered to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Those with whom the Minister of Labour consulted probably did not visualise the possibility of this difficulty arising. They had not seen each side of the case, as the House has seen it this evening.
In these circumstances, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to accept the suggestions made, take the matter back to the Minister and see whether something cannot be done at a later stage, otherwise these difficulties will arise and injustices will be imposed upon the employees of local authorities.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I regret the course which the Parliamentary Secretary has adopted. His case is based upon the fact that there have been consultations with industry, that the proposals in the Clause have been agreed to, and that we want to get on with the matter as quickly as possible. If he accepts the Amendment he will be recognising a principle as operating with the local authorities which he feels in his heart ought to operate also in respect of other organisations. Therefore, it creates an invidious distinction, and that, he says, is why he cannot accept the Amendment.
Two courses are easily open to the Minister. If the Government want negotiations in a hurry, either with the T.U.C. or the British Employers' Federation, they can get them. They would not take long. I am quite satisfied that even if they said there were difficulties they would have no objections to the Clause being amended protectively for the benefit of local authority associations who are unanimous in requiring what is embodied in the Amendment. I am quite satisfied that there would be quick agreement on the wide issues. The possibility of rapid negotiations could be looked at, and any possible embarrassment could be avoided if an Amendment were made after consultation. It is possible to do this. All that is required is the will, and if there is the will on the Front Bench opposite it can be done.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Amendment implied possible lack of discipline. It does nothing of the sort. The Industrial Court can determine the date. All we ask is that the Court should have a less fettered discretion about determining it, and I am sure that the employers and certainly the T.U.C. would not object to the Court having that discretion. We want a provision for a date not earlier than that to which the award actually applies. The Industrial Court will properly punish a union if the union is dilatory in its application by not making the award applicable to its initial date. It will be a perfectly simple issue for the Court.
I hope that the House will divide on the Amendment unless the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to give a little more assurance. If the attempt were made to make the provision embodied in the Amendment and it then proved in the end impossible to make it, we should accept that in good faith, but I do not think that we should leave the position as it is at present.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Lee: As I suggested a few minutes ago, the Bill has changed both its name and its Clauses on a great number of occasions. The essential Clause which has caused most of our discussions, both in Committee and on Report, has been on Clause 8, the Clause which has brought back into our legislation the issues procedure of the Industrial Disputes Order. The Minister has described the bringing back of the Clause and this principle as half a loaf, but we have pointed out that we do not consider in any way that this is something which is being granted to the trade union side of industry.
We know, or think we know, that the Minister acted somewhat precipitately in dispensing with the Industrial Disputes Order. We believe that he misread the minds of employers as a whole, in that he listened to those of the non-federated employers who wanted to get rid of the Order because very many of them were not honouring the agreement arrived at by both sides of the industry—that is, between the federated employers and the trade unions.
In many instances, after prolonged periods in which non-federated employers had not been paying their employees the agreed rates, the federated employers themselves objected. The Minister discovered that his action in wiping out completely the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Order was not a popular one with the federated employers. Therefore, he had the job of appeasing two sections of employers and to do that he brought back what is now Clause 8. I am restricted by the rules of order from going much wider than that, but I think that I am entitled to say that we on this side of the House regret and deplore that the provisions of that Order, a part of which is now enshrined in Clause 8, have not been brought in as widely as possible in order to include the disputes section about which so many of us have expressed ourselves during the passage of the Bill.
We feel that a great gap is left in our industrial negotiating arrangements and that Clause 8 is not by any means adequate to deal with important disputes which will arise from time to time in industry, because, although power is given to the Industrial Court to deal with matters previously technically known as issues under the Industrial Disputes Order, that of itself is not sufficiently wide to deal with disputes which may well now lead to strikes or lock-outs and which, had the Minister listened to our counsel on this matter, could have been covered in Clause 8.
Although we welcome Clause 8 for what it is worth—and we know that the trade unions have managed to use this kind of machinery to good advantage, and under the Clause retain that right—we feel that the Clause does not go far enough to guarantee the great deal of industrial harmony and peace on which the nation rightly congratulates itself. Ours is one of the great industrial nations which loses very little time in industry as a result of disputes. We want to maintain that very advantageous position. We feel that because the Minister has not gone as far in the Clause as we should have liked he is jeopardising that situation. Indeed, Clause 8 is a very poor thing in comparison with the wishes expressed by my right hon. Friends and myself during the passage of the Bill.
For the rest, we have agreed that the other Clauses in the Bill are desirable,


and indeed that the Schedules as well meet that new position as far as we are concerned. There is this one vital difference between us, to which in this Third Reading debate I wish to direct the attention of the House. I would not like it to be thought, from the fact that we do not propose to divide against the Bill on Third Reading, that that fact of itself expresses our complete satisfaction with it. It expresses only our partial satisfaction that the issues procedure has been brought back into our legislation, but, from the fact that it ignores the disputes procedure, about which we feel so strongly and on which the trade unions of this country also feel strongly. to that extent we are thoroughly dissatisfied with this Bill.
However, as I have said, it is not our intention to divide the House, because we have no wish to try to eliminate from this legislation that part of Clause 8 of which we approve.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Wood: I should like for a moment to comment on the metamorphosis which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and others see in this Bill, not only in its contents but in its title. Having listened to the discussion on Report stage and Third Reading so far for about two hours, I must say that I have hardly heard mention of the original purpose of the Wages Councils (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced in another place and which had its Second Reading in this House in the middle of December.
I do not think that there is anything that I need add to the exposition of the Bill, as it then was, given by my right hon. Friend, and, indeed, its whole significance has been altered by the Amendments which have been the main topic of our debate tonight.
I should like to apologise on this occasion for the Government's failure to give complete satisfaction on two counts. First, in the matter of the Amendment we have just discussed, when I should very much have liked to have met the point raised, but, for the reasons I gave, found that impossible. Secondly, on the point just raised by the hon. Member for Newton on the absence from this Bill—although it includes a procedure for dealing with claims, formerly called issues—

of any procedure to deal with disputes. I do not think that this is the time or place to go over the ground, which has been fairly well travelled, not only on the Second Reading of this Bill, but also in the Committee stage and on other occasions in this House.
My right hon. Friend pointed out on several occasions that he was faced with the dilemma whether, without agreement, he could proceed to impose a form of industrial arbitration on industry. He came to the conclusion that he could only proceed as far as he could gain agreement, and the talks which he had, following the Second Reading of the Bill in December, fortunately led to a fairly general and welcome measure of agreement on the claims procedure.
I should like to express here my gratitude, and I am sure that of my right hon. Friend, to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and his hon. Friends for the helpful way in which they received this proposal on claims, although they made it clear at the time that it was only half the loaf which they would have liked, and for the expeditious way in which they dealt with the Bill in Committee.
Therefore, I think the House would like to welcome this Bill, which I think is a very much improved Bill on the form in which it started. I am quite certain that, despite anything which the hon. Gentleman may have said to the contrary, he and his hon. Friends will at least give a very sincere and hearty welcome to the introduction in this Bill, at a rather late stage, of what I think is going to be a most important Clause, which will certainly be made use of in the future, and I think will be substantially welcomed throughout industry in this country.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: We too welcome the Bill as it now stands. We did not raise many matters in relation to the original Bill because we were in complete agreement with the decision to convert the wages boards under the Catering Wages Act, 1943, into wages councils. I am sure that that is a desirable and sensible thing to do, and we were glad to accede to the various Clauses of the Bill without wishing to put Amendments or make very much comment.
The Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly correct in saying that we regard


this Clause, which we welcome very much indeed, as important in relation to claims, but we regret very much that he was not able to give us the Clause that we would have liked on disputes. Nevertheless, it represents an addition to the present machinery for the settlement of disputes as between employers and workers and it is a Bill well worth having. While we may not be satisfied because it does not give us the whole loaf, we are glad to have it for what it is.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to highways, streets and bridges in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(a) the expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the said Act, to such amount as may be approved by the Treasury; and
(b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: May I enter a protest Sir Charles, from this side of the Committee at the way in which this Bill is being dealt with? I entered this protest on Thursday when we had the Second Reading, and now we are confronted with an Amendment Paper on which there are a considerable number of Amendments. There was no intention indicated to us on Thursday of tabling Amendments and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke only briefly. We feel that the House has not been treated with the consideration it should have received when we are dealing with such a long Bill. We are suddenly confronted with a large number of starred Amendments on the Amendment Paper and there has only been a very short time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage.

Mr. Ede: I wish to join with my hon. Friend in protesting about the way in which this Bill has been placed before us. We are told that this is a consolidation Measure, but throughout the Bill is speckled with Amendments of the existing law, some of which are far-reaching. For instance, Clause 4 almost revolutionises the relationship between county councils, claiming authorities and so on. If I liked, and if you allowed it, though I do not intend to ask you to do so, I could go through the Bill and point out these difficulties. For example, if one tried to leave out Clause 4 one would find oneself involved in at least half a dozen other Amendments to different parts of the Bill.
It would have been better for the Government to have introduced these Amendments in an amending Bill and then to consolidate the law when the Amendments had been separately considered. I think it is an abuse of the procedure which we sanction for consolidation Bills to attempt to foist this one upon us as a consolidation Measure.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I hope that I shall not leave any impression on the Committee that we intended to treat hon. Members with discourtesy or to leave them no opportunity to discuss the Bill adequately. As I explained on Second Reading, we are following a special procedure to deal in what is substantially a consolidation Measure, with some Amendments which were, in the opinion of the expert Reading Committee and of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses, not of substance, and therefore it is possible to treat this Bill as an agreed Measure.
It is true that this is an unusual procedure, but I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is familiar with it, though it has not often been used here. However, it has enabled the provisions of this long and complicated Bill to consolidate the mass of highway legislation into one coherent form instead of being in about 70 Statutes, and, at the same time, to tidy up the form and generally to make the law more convenient for the local authorities and others who must frequently turn to it.
I confess straight away that I had relied in the main on the report of the expert Committee in commending this procedure to hon. Members, but I have been fortified in finding opposite to me the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) who was able to commend this Measure to the House in equal terms because he was a member of the expert Committee and therefore knows far mare about it than I do.

Mr. Ede: Is the Minister proposing to leave the defence of the Measure to my hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Nugent: I think it would be in safe hands if I did so. I hope that what I have said is enough to show that this Bill is being presented in a sensible way, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that in the light of those expert views this form is not amending the law in substance. Such changes as have been made are of a small nature and not such as to alter the law substantially, and, therefore, I hope hon. Members will agree that this is a proper way to deal with the matter.
On the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), the Amendments in the name of the Government are, of course, all Privilege Amendments, which cover the sections of Clauses, or the ones which are down as new Clauses, which have financial implications and which therefore touch upon the Exchequer. In those circumstances the other place could not deal with them. They are all in the Bill as drafted, but because of that fact we had to deal with them by the procedure of putting them down again as Privilege Amendments.
There is nothing new that the Government are putting before the Committee today. The only new business before us are the Amendments put down by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and his hon. Friends. So we are not seeking to change the Bill, and because it had been agreed by common consent that this was an agreed Measure, and therefore we were not intending officially to deal with Amendments of substance, the short interval had not seemed to us to be a matter which would put either side to inconvenience. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my apology if it has put him to any inconvenience, for that was certainly not our intention.

Mr. Ernest Davies: It seems to me that as we discussed the Bill on Thursday it might have been possible for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to explain to the House then that the procedure necessitated these Amendments being put down. Does he appreciate the position of hon. Members? Many of us this morning were attending Standing Committees, as he is aware, and when we collected the Notice Paper later, we found these Amendments. We had other matters to attend to and could not necessarily immediately realise that these Amendments were privileged. It would seem to me to have been only courteous to hon. Members to say that this procedure would be followed or, alternatively, it would have been possible to put the Amendments down on Friday so that hon. Members could see them over the weekend.
After all, the Minister expected his Bill to go through on Thursday and did not


think it would be thrown out. I feel that hon. Members have been treated in such a way that it has made unnecessary work and labour fall on the shoulders of some hon. Members.

The Chairman: If there is to be a debate someone should move to report Progress, because that is out of order on this Question. Does the Minister wish to report Progress?

Mr. Nugent: I had hoped that in the light of the explanation I have given and the apology I have made if the House suffered any inconvenience, the Committee might be ready to accept the Clause.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I was wondering whether I might put a question to the Minister arising out of what has already been said. This Bill comprises 313 Clauses and 26 Schedules in 300 pages. I am wondering if the Minister could tell us that there is in it anything of which it could not really and truthfully be said that it is consolidation. It is impossible at this period of time to look at each one of these Clauses with care. If we could have the assurance that there is really no substantial new matter in the Bill, and that it is in truth a consolidation Measure, I, for one, would be completely happy about the whole proceeding.

Mr. Nugent: I readily give that assurance in the terms in which it has been given to me, first, by the expert Committee under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Reading and, secondly, by the Joint Select Committee of both Houses. Both of them have given us the assurance that the changes which have been made do not in any respect amount to changes of substance, that the Bill is to present a mass of legislation in a more convenient form, and that, therefore, these changes are suitable to be dealt with in this way as an agreed Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34.—(DEDICATION OF WAY AS HIGHWAY PRESUMED AFTER PUBLIC USE FOR TWENTY YEARS.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I beg to move, in page 30, line 38, to leave out subsection (2).
I am sorry if I am introducing a difficult note into this kindly atmosphere, but the very few Amendments which I have put down do not appear to me as a layman to introduce any really new matter or to make any change of real substance to the Bill. Indeed, I have avoided putting down any Amendment which would appear to do that.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: On a point of order. As I understand, this is a House of Lords consolidation Measure, and all the Clauses are consolidating Clauses. If it is a consolidating Measure, ought not the House and the Committee to have been told whether there is a certificate to that effect?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James MacColl): This is not purely a consolidating Measure, but includes some amendments to the law. Therefore, this is in order.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am hoping that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that this Amendment is not a change of any real substance, although it could bring very great relief to many amenity bodies which are concerned with the position as it is.
It was, as I understand, the desire that the Rights of Way Act, which originally made the provision relating to the dedication of highways, should somewhat ease the common law position and make it simpler. Instead of that it has been found, only quite recently in the courts, that it has made it rather more cumbrous and difficult for those who wish to establish rights of way.
None of us is suggesting that there should be any change in the period to establish user, the period of twenty years, which has to be proved to establish a right of way under this Clause. What we are concerned about is the way in which the twenty years should be calculated. The twenty years must be calculated retrospectively from the date on which the right is brought into question. Quite often, as has been shown in recent years,


although it can be proved that the plain right of way has been in use for twenty years or more, because it cannot be proved up to the actual moment at which the right is brought into question the whole claim fails.
There was an example quite recently, in the Rothschild case in 1957, and there have been subsequent cases also, where there was an established right of user right up to the recent war, up to 1939, or rather more recently, but then there was a break, for the simple reason that the land over which the path went was requisitioned, and so there was denial in that way of user. The effect of that breach of the period makes it quite impossible for anyone to establish the necessary qualification which is required under this subsection.
I do not believe that it was ever intended that the law should operate in this way. It has ruled out the use of many paths over land requisitioned during the war or since. It is felt by those who wish to preserve rights of way that this opportunity should be taken to delete this subsection, so that rights of way may be preserved where that is reasonably possible without hardship. This Amendment is merely trying to give effect to what was understood to be the position until it was challenged relatively recently in the courts.
I feel that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should consider it in that light, and not take the view which, perhaps inevitably, the Reading Committee had to take when it was considering the matter, that this was beyond its powers. We, in this Committee, are in a slightly different situation, and I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give the matter consideration even if he cannot accept the Amendment straight away. If he would accept it he would earn the very great good will of the many bodies concerned and would establish what was thought to be the law on the matter.

Mr. Nugent: I listened with interest and care to the plea put so persuasively by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), and I sympathise with his wish to keep open footpaths wherever possible. Like him, I much enjoy country walks, and I certainly appreciate that one cannot take much pleasure in a country walk on the roads

nowadays; unless one can use footpaths one will be lucky to return home safely.
I fear, nevertheless, that I shall have to give to him the reply, which was given to the Commons, Open Spaces, and Footpaths Preservation Society by the Reading Committee, which is referred to in paragraph 31 of its Report, where it says that the society
thought however, and rightly, that we would regard this as an amendment of too substantial a nature to be effected by a Bill which is primarily a measure of consolidation.
I am afraid that the hon. Member's plea that this was understood to be the law until recently and the Rothschild case cannot help me to look on this as an Amendment other than of substance which would affect a number of other interests, which, of course, have not been consulted in this matter at all by us. That means that the only course I can possibly follow now at this Box must be to accept the advice of the expert Committee which has taken such pains to make this, although not completely in form a consolidation Measure, nevertheless in principle a consolidation Measure, and I must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment, whatever merits it may have.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Amendment undoubtedly serves to draw attention to the difficulties attaching to the procedure through which the Bill is going. The Parliamentary Secretary was quite right in saying that I had commended the Bill. I had the privilege of serving upon the Reading Committee, and the Bill is a product of the work of those on that Committee. It is, therefore, at least not illogical for me to recommend it as a Measure. In doing so, however, I wish to make it clear that difficulties attach to the procedure involved.
If the question covered by my hon. Friend's Amendment had come before the Reading Committee when I was serving on it I would have had no doubt that it raised an issue which was outside the terms of reference of that Committee. Indeed, that was the opinion put forward by the Committee in regard to this type of problem. The fact remains that the Bill now comes before us in the same colour and character as any other Bill. It has no certificate as a consolidation Measure. It is for that reason that you


called the Amendment, Mr. MacColl, and it is for that reason that the Amendment is in order. That being so, how reasonable is it for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that having regard to the nature of the Measure he can only answer "No"? There is some inescapable flaw in this procedure and the way in which the problem is being dealt with.
Being no longer bound by the strict terms of reference which formerly circumscribed my inquiries, I turn to the issue raised by my hon. Friend. I favour the amendment of the law which he proposes. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that when we want to establish that a right of way has been created under law, although we may be able to prove to those who require proof that there has been an uninterrupted user for a period of twenty years, two or three years previously an inquiry has been raised in a local newspaper questioning the existence of the right of way. Under the existing law, the period of twenty years must be measured from the date of the letter in the Press and it may be that efforts to establish the existence of the right of way are stultified by the fact that evidence relevant to the most recent period of two or three years cannot be provided.
The Amendment constitutes an improvement in the law. I concede that there is a difficulty, in that the matter arises in this context, and I think my hon. Friend recognises that fact. The Amendment raises a question of substance, and it is being considered by the Committee in the context of what is, from 99 points of view out of 100, a consolidation Measure. It must be for the Committee to determine the appropriate way of dealing with the matter, and I wish only to point out the character of the difficulties which arise and to indicate to the Committee that, taken on its merits, the Amendment has my support

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It would at least give me some satisfaction if the Parliamentary Secretary would move a little way from the formal words he has used up to now and say that he welcomes the proposal and realises that it is a modest one. I do not desire to do anything to ruin the possibility of a speedy passage of the Bill, but it would be some satisfaction if the hon. Member would undertake to consider the

matter in order to see how best it could be dealt with. I can assure him that it is giving anxiety to many people.

Mr. Nugent: I want to be as helpful as I can to the Committee in the rather difficult position in which I find myself. The only ground upon which I can stand is the advice of the Reading Committee Report. I accept the adroit position which has been taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), in saying that in the context of making the Report he considered the matter brought before him within the very limited terms of reference in which the Committee had to consider these matters, but that it is now open to the Committee to consider any Amendment it wishes to consider, since the Bill is going through the House as an ordinary piece of legislation.
In order to maintain the difficult balance of the situation when everyone, by common consent, has observed a self-denying ordinance; when the local authority interests and the other massive interests concerned with highways have, one and all, refrained from making the representations they might have made, because they feel, as we pointed out in the Second Reading debate, that although the Measure makes none of the Amendments which we should all like to see it nevertheless does a useful piece of work in bringing together the mass of legislation which is now enacted in about seventy different Measures, we thought it worth while proceeding in this rather unusual way and observing this uncomfortable self-denying ordinance.
Although I have to give a negative answer to the hon. Member, I would not like to leave the impression that I do not think his suggestion has any merit. I sympathise with the object of the Amendment. I will see that it is taken note of, and I hope that in the not too distant future it will be possible for the Government of the day to make major amending highway legislation which will include this proposal. Many Amendments require to be made in this legislation, and I will certainly see that this proposal is considered when fresh legislation is in mind.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary refers to "major legislation ", but I regard the Amendment as a very minor one. I should merely like


the Minister to say that he is prepared to slip through quickly some of the minor points which tread on the corns of many people.

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that I cannot hold out any prospect of separate legislation to meet the hon. Member's point, much as I would like to help him. I cannot go further than I have, which is to say that I shall certainly record the fact that this point should be included in new legislation.

Mr. Ede: What we have just heard confirms my worst suspicions when I protested earlier about the way in which the Measure has been compiled and put in front of us. I express my hearty congratulations to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) for having so clearly exposed this racket.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In order at least to prick the conscience of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary into taking further action, and in the hope that his words will bear as early fruit as possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 35 to 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40.—(POWER OF HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES TO ADOPT BY AGREEMENT.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 36, line 29, at the end to insert:
(5) An agreement under this section may contain such provisions as to the dedication as a highway of any road or way to which the agreement relates, the bearing of the expenses of the construction, maintenance or improvement of any highway, road, bridge or viaduct to which the agreement relates and other relevant matters as the authority making the agreement think fit.
This is a Privilege Amendment. It is already in the Bill, as subsection (5), but as it has a financial implication it could not be dealt with in the other place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 41 to 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44.—(DUTY TO MAINTAIN HIGH WAYS MAINTAINABLE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Perhaps I may continue my conversation with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary by inviting him to examine the Clause and add the point I am going to make to the one he has already noted for future reference. It appears to many of us that an early opportunity should be taken to enable highway authorities to maintain stiles on footpaths. This question has been somewhat obscure in the past, and I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman and his Ministry will agree that the time has come for it to be cleared up, and that if the footpaths themselves are to be maintained, the stiles, which are an inherent and natural part of them, should also be maintained, again for the laudable object of encouraging more people to use footpaths, thus keeping off the roads and reducing the number of accidents.

Mr. Nugent: I shall be very happy to take note of the hon. Member's suggestion that stiles should be maintained by highway authorities. Perhaps I should also include kissing gates which can provide a pleasant incident on footpaths through the country, especially in the summertime. What will lie in store for us as a result of these considerations I cannot promise, but I will certainly see that note is taken of the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Ede: I hope that among other things which will be noted in this connection will be the desirability of seeing that any means of progress over a stream is properly maintained. There is no better way to destroy a footpath than to remove the plank, or whatever means of crossing the stream is available, and then to say that no one uses the path. Obviously, such a means of progress is as important as either a stile or a kissing gate.

Mr. Nugent: I shall be glad to remember that, too. I have in mind particularly some stepping stones which serve an admirable purpose in the River Mole in the


Mickleham Valley, with which the right hon. Gentleman has something to do, and that perhaps is the best way of crossing shallow streams.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 45 to 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64.—(GENERAL POWER OF IMPROVEMENT.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 54, line 34, at the end to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the powers of improvement specifically conferred on highway authorities by the following provisions of this Part of this Act, any such authority shall have power to carry out, in relation to a highway maintainable at the public expense by them, any work (including the provision of equipment) for the improvement of the highway, other than work for lighting it:
This, also, is a Privilege Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 65 to 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68.—(REFUGES.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 57, line 16, to leave out "a highway authority may" and to insert:
It shall be the duty of a highway authority to provide".

The Temporary Chairman: I think that this Amendment may be discussed together with the two following Amendments in the name of the hon. Gentleman; in line 18, after "carriageway" to insert, "and to", and in line 21 at the end to insert:
in any case where they consider the provision thereof necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of pedestrians".

Mr. Page: I am obliged, Mr. MacColl; the three Amendments deal with the same subject.
This has been "gag day". We started with a Bill which we were told we could not speak about because we might embarrass a future Chancellor of the Exchequer. We then went on to deal with a Bill which we were told we could not speak about because it had been settled between the T.U.C. and the B.E.C. We

have now come to a Bill which we are not to speak about because it is a consolidation Measure. I propose to take the opportunity to move this Amendment even though it may be an Amendment to something which is the law. I consider the grouping of Clauses 67 to 70 is cynical. Clause 67 says:
It shall be the duty of a highway authority to provide… a proper and sufficient footway…
Clause 70 states:
It shall be the duty of a highway authority to provide…
grass verges for ridden horses and driven livestock. In both those Clauses a duty is imposed on the highway authority, and elsewhere in the Bill duties are imposed regarding such things as cattle-grids in Clause 87 (2) and snow clearance in Clause 129 (1). But in Clause 68 relating to refuges and getting a pedestrian safely across the road it merely states that "a highway authority may" provide refuges. There is no obligation. My Amend-mend seeks to put refuges on the same basis as footpaths.
8.30 p.m.
I am not asking that local authorities should be compelled nor that an absolute duty should be imposed on them. Under the provisions of Clause 67, footpaths are to be provided when a highway authority considers,
the provision thereof necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of pedestrians.
I am proposing that the same consideration shall be given to the provision of refuges in the road. A highway authority could always say that it did not think it was necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of pedestrians to provide a refuge. But I suggest that the Amendment would show highway authorities that the Committee considers refuges as important as footpaths. A refuge in a road is valuable because it enables a pedestrian to concentrate on one stream of traffic at a time and not endeavour to concentrate or to judge the speeds of two streams of traffic or even six upon occasion—three going in one direction and three in the other. I have always considered that one needs a rubber neck, to be cross-eyed and to have a photographic mind and the mathematical mentality of an Einstein to be able to judge the speed of traffic in


order to cross the road in safety. If that mental exercise is halved by the pedestrian having to negotiate half of the road at a time greater safety would result.
A motorist does not have the same difficulty. He merely puts out an indicator on his vehicle or flicks on a flashing light and then moves his car to the middle of the road and makes his vehicle into an island for himself. He has the protection of his car. He does not have to negotiate several streams of traffic going in different directions at different speeds. But on occasion we expect elderly people to judge the speeds of six lines of traffic in order to cross the road in safety. It is amazing that pedestrians are involved in only one-fifth of the accidents which occur. Because of the hazards to which they are exposed when crossing roads one might have thought that they would be involved in many more accidents.
There appears to be something of a conspiracy to remove these island refuges from our roads.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: No.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend says, "No," but the motorists continually knock them down and the highway authorities do not replace them, which is a complete surrender to bad driving. I suppose it is cheaper for the highway authority that a motorist should knock down a pedestrian rather than a bollard. So the islands are not restored. I am not speaking theoretically. I refer hon. Members to the situation in Whitehall. There the traffic islands were removed at the time of the Coronation and they have never been replaced. Now there is a considerable stretch of Whitehall where it is quite impossible for pedestrians to cross the road. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this matter from the point of view of emphasising the importance of refuges in connection with safety and to put the same obligation upon highway authorities regarding refuges as the provision of footpaths. The Committee should express its belief in the contribution which refuges can make to the safety of pedestrians.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: If this matter had come before the Reading Committee, it

would have been strongly arguable that it was within its terms of reference and, therefore, that the consideration which an earlier Amendment received from the Government Front Bench would not be appropriate to this Amendment. Having concluded that it might well have been within the terms of reference of that Committee, I think it right to say, as one who served upon it, that one of the factors which appeared as very relevant in connection with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) would be the circumstance that the provision in the existing law has a date as recent as 1956. As I understand it. this is a re-enactment of a provision in the Road Traffic Act, 1956.
In considering this whole matter, therefore, looking at it all always in the context of consolidation, which is our primary objective, one would hesitate to make a recommendation to alter a provision so recently determined by Parliament in legislation which went through in the ordinary way and not in this way. That would have been an important factor in our minds. After all, in the space of only three years to recommend changing what had been a discretionary power to a mandatory power is to propose something which obviously requires very careful thought.
For my part, I should be inclined, upon the merits of the issue, to share the view of the hon. Member for Crosby that, as the duties in this series of Clauses assume mandatory form, it may well be not appropriate that this discretionary power should take its place in the midst of them. Perhaps it is rather a narrow question, but I certainly should not feel confident to oppose the view expressed by the hon. Member for Crosby. Bearing in mind, as I say, that this may well have been within the terms of reference upon which the Reading Committee worked. which the Parliamentary Secretary indicated he regards as relevant to our consideration this evening, and with those other factors in mind also, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will carefully consider the proposal made.

Mr. Nugent: I have given very careful consideration to the views put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who has presented me with a fresh situation by pointing out that this did not come


before the Reading Committee and might have had favourable consideration if it did, with the qualification that the presence of recent legislation might have caused the Committee to hesitate.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I will say that, whatever may have happened on previous legislation this evening, "gag" day has not followed for him on this Bill. Knowing as I do his very warm feelings about the safety of pedestrians on the road, I congratulate him on finding an opportunity to express his views about improving their safety on this particular Measure.
I must advise the Committee that this would be an Amendment of substance. I am certain that local authorities which had to find a significant part of the cost of these islands would have a view to express on an Amendment of this nature. Of course, they have had no opportunity to do so. The balance is about right as to whether there should be a direct obligation or whether it should be permissive to place refuges in the middle of the road.
Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that I know of no local authorities which prefer to see pedestrians knocked down in the middle of the road rather than bollards and which therefore remove the bollards. Neither does the Ministry of Transport prefer that. Certainly it has been one of my interests since I have been at the Ministry of Transport to promote the fixing of a number of these refuges in busy thoroughfares, because I have long recognised the great measure of safety which they give to pedestrians on roads carrying heavy traffic.
In many cases where, for one good reason or another—and because of the great caution that must be exercised before adding to the existing number of pedestrian crossings, if there is to be any prospect of their observance—I have felt it my duty to refuse requests of hon. Members for pedestrian crossings I have been able to bring about the fixing of an island refuge in the middle of the road, which in my opinion has given a far greater measure of road safety for pedestrians than a safety crossing would.
I am warmly in favour of refuges. I believe that they do just what the hon. Member says, that is to enable pedestrians to negotiate one stream of

traffic at a time. They certainly reduce accidents very greatly. One of the difficulties is that one needs a certain width of road in order to place them. Therefore, in many cases it is simply impossible to place them without substantial road widening. We sometimes manage to do even that.
I feel that the hon. Member is safe in leaving this as a permissive power—safe in the confidence that we at the Ministry of Transport will always consider very sympathetically any suggestions to place fresh refuges where some further measure of safety is needed to help pedestrians crossing busy roads. Hon. Members have plenty of opportunity to see that their views will be heard in this respect. The Committee can safely leave it in its present form in the knowledge that any reasonable application on these lines will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary has once again shown us the difficulty we are in with the Bill, the procedure under which we are working and how ridiculous it is. He made a speech strongly in support of the Amendments tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). He stressed that the installation of these refuges would increase the safety of pedestrians. He later repeated that it would provide a greater measure of safety. He argued strongly in favour of erecting refuges wherever it was considered that greater safety would be provided.
These Amendments simply make it the duty of highway authorities to provide them in any case where they consider their provision necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of pedestrians. Therefore, the discretion is still left in the hands of highway authorities. It seems unfortunate that though both sides of the Committee, including the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, appear to favour the idea of this additional safety measure being incorporated in the Bill, because of the procedure under which we are working the Committee is advised not to do so.
After all, the road safety record of this country causes us all very grave concern at this time. The figures, which are so well known to us, are appalling. Through the ingenuity of an hon. Member, an Amendment is proposed which my hon.
and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said was within the terms of reference of the Reading Committee, with the one qualification that it would involve a change in recent legislation. That qualification is not one which was always abided by by the Reading Committee or the Joint Committee which followed it. I think—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Davies: After that interlude I feel tempted to make a long speech, having a larger congregation than normally. I was saying that here we have Amendments which admittedly would improve road safety, and the Parliamentary Secretary has advised us to reject them. I regret that and consider that it does reflect once more the rather unusual and unfortunate procedure we are working on.

Mr. Page: I must press my hon. Friend yet again on this. Surely it is not necessary always to have the consent of the local authority associations before any amendment is made to the duties and obligations of local authorities. In this case it is a very small alteration. As the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) said, this leaves a discretion in the hands of local authorities. They are only asked to provide refuges where they consider them necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of pedestrians.
As the Bill stands, there is an invidious distinction between refuges and footpaths. In the case of footpaths there is a limited obligation on the local authority. In the case of refuges there is a rather vague statement that the local authority may provide the refuges. We are now on the Committee stage. As there is the Report stage to come, will my hon. Friend consider this Amendment, not merely from the point of view of an Amendment to a Bill which he wants to keep intact as a consolidation Measure, but from the point of view that, apart from the Amendments which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has tabled and one

other in my name on the Order Paper, it is the only Amendment and will not open the floodgates. If he gives an assurance that he will consider the wording and put down an Amendment on Report stage, in which case I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. Nugent: I would be glad to assist my hon. Friend in any way I can, but I cannot go further than I have already said. For me to accept an Amendment which is certainly a substantial one would be to destroy the whole form in which I have asked the Committee to consider the Bill. I quite accept the weight of the complaint of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that the procedure is peculiar and rather frustrating to us, but hon. Members who have spoken suggesting Amendments are not alone in thinking of ways to improve the Bill. I can think of many that would greatly improve it. In this procedure, however, this is the only way of proceeding if we are to achieve our purpose to get this valuable Measure of consolidation.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that at the moment, with traffic coming from both sides of me, I should be very happy to find a refuge on which I could put my own foot with safety. The fact is that in these matters my hon. Friend must continue to rely on the sympathetic consideration of my right hon. Friend and myself, which has been readily forthcoming for refuges, and, I am certain, always would be forthcoming, because these are one of the most practicable measures. I hope that in these circumstances, my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Page: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 69 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82.—(POWERS OF HIGHWAY AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PLANT TREES, LAY OUT GRASS VERGES, ETC.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 68, line 43, at the end to insert:
(4) Subject to the restrictions for the time being imposed by any enactment on their expenditure, the council of a parish may. with


the consent of the highway authority for a highway maintainable at the public expense in the parish, exercise with respect to that highway any of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section on the highway authority.
This is a Privilege Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I cannot let the occasion pass without taking credit for the Amendment. I feel proud that in view of the procedure under which we have been operating, I succeeded in getting an Amendment into the Bill at one of the numerous stages through which it passed. In the Joint Committee of the other place and of the House of Commons, there was discussion of the Clause, I put forward the idea behind the Amendment and the Department drafted it.
What the Amendment does and my reason for pressing it was that as the original Bill stood, a parish council which happened to be a highway authority across a village green was not able to plant trees, shrubs or anything on the side of the highway, which was part of the highway although not actually used for traffic. It seemed to me that when all other highway authorities had this power. it was only just and right that a parish council should be able to exercise a similar power. It was not considered that this was an Amendment of such substance that it went before the terms of reference of the Joint Committee. With these few words, I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 83 to 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103.—(DRAINAGE OF HIGHWAYS.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 82, line 45, at the end to insert:
(b) erect barriers in the highway or in such land as aforesaid to divert surface water into or through any existing ditch, gutter, drain, watercourse, bridge, culvert, tunnel or pipe;
This and the following Amendment are both Privilege Amendments.
Amendment agreed to
Further Amendment made::In page 83, line 7, at end insert:
(2) If the owner or occupier of any land, not being waste or common land, suffers

damage by reason of the exercise by a highway authority of their powers under the foregoing subsection, the authority shall pay him compensation therefor.—[Mr. Nugent.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104.—(PROVISION OF DIRECTION SIGNS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 84, line 7, at the end, to add:
(2) Any rural district council or parish council may erect and maintain direction posts of such size and type as may be approved by the council in or adjacent to public footpaths (not being footpaths at the side of a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large) and bridlepaths with the consent of the owner in fee simple of the land on which it is proposed to erect the same and of any person having the control or management of such land. The exercise of these powers shall be subject to the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 to 1956, and to any regulations made or any general or other directions given by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in pursuance of the said provisions.
Unfortunately, this is not a Privilege Amendment and, presumably, will not be treated in as privileged a way as an earlier Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) so successfully managed to drive into this granite Bill. I am, however, encouraged by my hon. Friend's remarks. It is possible, or has been possible, to make Amendments in the Bill provided that they refer, apparently, to the planting of trees.
Although there are a number of words to it, this is a modest proposal that parish and rural district councils should have the right, not to plant trees, but to put up direction signs in suitable places for footpaths. I do not see why, if parish councils can properly be given power to plant trees, they should not be given power to put up a modest number of direction signs—not a lot of them, because I do not like too many of them—for footpaths. To use the words of a famous book which, I hope, most of us have read, the Bill becomes "curiouser and curiouser" as we go along.
In many cases, the Bill is re-enacting various provisions that have become general usage in Private Acts of Parliament which have been generally accepted by local authorities throughout the country. All that the Amendment does is to put into this legislation proposals


that have been accepted by a large number of county councils and other authorities in their Private Acts. It has been accepted by so many local authorities as to become almost standard practice, and I am now only giving the Parliamentary Secretary a little shove to encourage him to make it standard practice.
These provisions are contained in almost identical words in the Kent Act, 1955, the Gloucester Act, 1956, the Hertfordshire Act, 1935, the Cumberland Act, 1948, the West Riding of Yorkshire Act, 1941, the Nottinghamshire Act, 1951, the Berkshire Act, 1953, the Cheshire Act, 1953, and the Derbyshire Act, 1954. It seems impressive that all these notable local authorities should have found it desirable to take powers to enable parish and rural councils to put up direction signs, where they desire them, for footpaths.
In view of that great evidence of desirability, and of the success of my hon. Friend—a success that should not stand alone in this field—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will gladden all our hearts by now jumping up and saying that in this case he feels that direction signs, like trees, should have his special protection and support, and that he is prepared to agree to this modest Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: My hon. Friend's acceptance of the Amendment, either now or on Report, would be gratefully received in many parts of the country. People are having a lot of difficulty in keeping footpaths open—indeed, they are forcing their way through undergrowth to make sure that the footpaths are kept for the public. A signpost put up in many parts of the country, as they have been Yorkshire and Berkshire, would be a valuable means of keeping open the footpaths. Ramblers are in favour of this Amendment, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us that he hopes, on Report, to find a way of accepting it.

Mr. Nugent: I agree that direction signs for footpaths across country are very convenient indeed, and that it is easy to get lost without them. I also concede the claim of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that this provision is found in much local legislation. I congratulate him on the

thoroughness of his research, which enabled him to enumerate the good company in which it is found. Even so, I am unable to advise the Committee to accept his Amendment.
I feel particularly persuaded by the consideration that was given by the Reading Committee, to the general problem, and by the comment made in paragraph 57 of its Report in regard not to this particular Amendment, but to something not substantially dissimilar. In that paragraph, the Committee said:
…we felt that as Parliament had granted additional powers to parish councils as recently as 1957 in the Parish Councils Act of that year, it would not be right for this Bill…
In the light of that comment, I find it difficult to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment, sensible though it is in itself. I did not take part in the deliberations on that Bill. Why this Amendment was not made then I have no idea, but I feel that, in the circumstances, as this matter has been so very recently and fully discussed by the House, which decided to leave the law as it is—by which local Acts can provide for it if local authorities wish to do so—the right thing is to leave the law as it is.
I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East was not himself a member of the Joint Select Committee, on which he could have exercised his persuasive powers with, perhaps, success equal to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). In the circumstances that I have described, I feel that acceptance of the Amendment would be contrary to the spirit of the Report of the Committee, as I understand it. Whatever personal sympathies I may feel, that Report must be my guiding light in carrying this Measure through the Committee, and advising hon. Members how we should proceed. Reluctantly, therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: The rubric to the Clause indicates that it reproduces Section 24 of the Highways Act, 1835, and for the sake of greater accuracy I have provided myself with a copy of that Section. It reads:
The surveyor of every parish, other than a parish the whole or part of which is within three miles of the General Post Office of the city of London, shall, with the consent of the inhabitants of any parish in vestry assembled, or by the direction of the justices at a special


sessions for the highways, cause (where there are no such stones or posts) to be erected or fixed in the most convenient place where two or more ways meet, a stone or post, with inscriptions thereon in large legible letters, not less than one inch in height, and of a proper and proportionate breadth, containing the name of the next market town, village or other place to which the said highways respectively lead, as well as stones or posts to mark the boundaries of the highway. containing the name of the parish wherein situate; and the surveyor of every parish shall, at the several approaches or entrances to such parts of any highways as are subject to deep or dangerous floods, cause to be erected graduated stones or posts as he shall judge to be necessary for the guiding of travellers in the best and safest track through the floods, and also to secure horse causeways and foot causeways, by posts, blocks, or stones fixed in the ground, or by banks of earth cast up or otherwise, from being passed over and spoiled by waggons, wains, carts, or carriages; and the said surveyor shall he reimbursed, out of the monies which shall be received by him pursuant to the directions of this Act, the expenses of providing and erecting and of keeping in repair such stones, posts. or blocks already erected or fixed, or which may hereafter be erected or fixed.
When one sees the abbreviated form in which Section 24 now appears in the Bill, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary: what happened to the rest of it? While recognising that some of it is now archaic, it is important that there should be a clear understanding of it. As far as I know, until tonight it has been the duty of the highway authority, which has succeeded the parish surveyor, to erect a post with the kind of information thereon which is prescribed in that Section.
For the purposes of the Highways Act, 1835, a footpath was a highway, and as far as I know it still is. It would be of the utmost help to people going on their way, whether by car or by use of a footpath, to be certain that the direction post gives the sort of information prescribed in the 1835 Act.
I hope that the proper marking of signposts will be among the matters which the Parliamentary Secretary will note as requiring legislation in the amending Bill about which he has been negotiating with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. I hope that the question of the signposting of roads where two or more ways meet will be regarded by the Ministry as of the utmost importance.

Mr. Blenkinsop: After hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for South

Shields (Mr. Ede), it is perfectly clear to me, if to no one else, that my proposal is modest in the extreme compared with the changes that have apparently been made at an earlier stage. I find it impossible to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's view that there is something completely and utterly sacrosanct about the form of the Bill and that we should not make modest proposals which have the general good will of hon. Members on both sides. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to make heavy weather of these very modest proposals and to agree that we are merely clearing up the provisions which seem to have been desired in the days when the original Act was passed. I hope that he will take that point into account when he replies.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary must be a most unhappy man. Again, in speaking to this Amendment, he has made it quite clear that he sympathises with its purpose. He said so. He favours it and supports it. He himself is a countryman who walks around the countryside and requires these signposts. He considers that parish councils should provide them.
Having said all that in support of the Amendment, he proceeds to reject it. Our proceedings are becoming quite a farce. Hon. Members who have had the ingenuity to put down these Amendments and all we have discussed so far have been very reasonable. It is ridiculous that the hon. Gentleman should tell hon. Members that he supports them, that the law should be so-and-so but we cannot have them. It is quite extraordinary that parish councils have not got these powers today. They had the powers which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) read from the Act, which this Measure will supplant and in a great number of local Acts these powers are readily granted. As, from year to year, they are incorporated in local Acts, I cannot see any force in the argument that because there was general legislation in 1957 an Amendment of this type cannot be made to this Bill.
The suggested extension of powers of parish councils to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred in quoting paragraph 57 of the Report of the Reading Committee went much further than this Amendment. The Committee


was considering giving powers to parish councils to improve and maintain footpaths. That was something which would go further than merely power to put up signs for footpaths. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary must salve his conscience. He cannot allow his conscience to get into the state into which it must be getting at present. He should consider whether when we have finished the Committee stage we can postpone further consideration of the Bill and have a Report stage in which these minor Amendments can be considered. Perhaps he will consult the Minister and see whether that is possible.

Mr. Nugent: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) for his consideration for my conscience. Certainly, my conscience is clear, although I am very conscious of having my withers wrung on all sides— [Laughter.] By both sides, certainly at the back of my withers. It seems ungrateful to keep having to say, "No" to a proposal which in itself has much to commend it.
It is true that I walk about the countryside and, in another capacity, have responsibility for footpaths in my parish. For many years I have been chairman of my parish council. I am continually interested in seeing that the footpaths are kept open, a task which, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will recollect, in Surrey is by no means an easy one. In answer to his interesting researches about the 1835 Act, I have discovered that the powers of the surveyor have devolved on highway authorities and the powers and duties of highway authorities with regard to the erection of direction posts—that is, traffic signs—are covered by provisions of the Road Traffic Acts.
Therefore, they are not reproduced here, but, as a matter of interest, in Clause 105 there is part of the 1835 Act, an interesting part. It is the provision of posts to indicate the depth of flood water. So at least we have part of the historical record still preserved. I only hope that flood water will not appear on the roads and require posts to indicate its depth.
I am not able to go further, despite the eloquent plea of the hon. Mem-

ber for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), than to say that this point will be recorded and will be considered for the future when we reach the substantive legislation. Personally, I sympathise with its merit.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the assurance that I have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 105 to 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127.—(PENALTY FOR DEPOSITING THINGS, OR PITCHING BOOTHS, ETC., ON HIGHWAYS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ernest Davies: There is only one one question I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, which I am sure he will be readily able to answer. I, too, did a little research into the original Act which we are consolidating, the 1835 Highways Act. This Clause replaces Section 72 of that Act. Paragraph (c) of Clause 127 of the present Bill reads:
If, without lawful authority, or excuse—
(c) a hawker or other itinerant trader of a gipsy pitches a booth, stall or stand, or encamps on a highway.
In the 1835 Act higglers were prohibited from camping on the highway. Why have we dropped the higglers from this Bill? Why are we not saying that they also are prohibited from camping on the highway? I am sure that it would be a very serious matter today if higglers did so, so perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would tell us why they have been omitted.

Mr. Nugent: I thank the hon. Member for the compliment which he pays me in expecting me to know every detail of this Bill of 313 Clauses. I think that the answer is that the words "itinerant trader" are wide enough to cover higglers, and therefore it is not necessary to specify them separately.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 128 to 158 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 159.—(POWER TO DECLARE EXIST ING HIGHWAY TO BE A NEW STREET.)

Mr. Page: I beg to move, in page 126, line 15, to leave out subsection (6).
I suppose that the most I can hope for is to stake a claim to a Clause in the amending Bill promised to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop)—despite the fact that this Clause is to a great extent new law providing for the confiscation of private property without compensation. This is extremely serious. We are asked to put a rubber stamp on a Clause which the Reading Report euphemistically describes as Clause 30 of the Public Health Act,1925, with modifications.
The modifications are very extensive when one comes to consider them. It is true that Clause 159 was intended to be a re-enactment of Section 30 of the Public Health Act, 1925. The Reading Report describes it as drafted
… produce in clear terms the results which it is believed were intended by Parliament in enacting the section.
I hope that Parliament tonight will be able to say what it intended by that Section 30 and that it did not intend what is now included in Clause 159.
I should like to describe briefly the position with regard to local authority rights concerning new streets. The local authority, of course, can make byelaws governing the level, width, sewerage, etc., of new streets. This may result in land being taken from the private owner and the owner may also be called on to pay for street works. But even in this case, namely, the case of new streets, under Clause 163 of the Bill, if the local authority requires that the new street be more than 20 ft. wider than the normal maximum width described by the byelaws, compensation must be paid for that extra width.
Under Clause 164, if the local authority requires any alteration in plans submitted by the developer of the private street—if the local authority wants it diverted in some respect or its level altered—it must pay compensation. In those cases of entirely new streets, compensation must be paid, but Clause 159 deals with an existing street and it requires the frontager to an existing highway to give up his land if the local authority so requires, by ordering that the street shall be widened. The local authority, of course, has other

powers in connection with the widening of the highway and the street. Under Clause 72 it has power to prescribe an improvement line for widening a street. If it does so, it must pay compensation if it is taking the land from the adjoining owners, but if it uses Section 159 it can, in effect, take that land without paying any compensation.
As I said at the beginning, this is intended to be a re-enactment of Section 30 of the Public Health Act, 1935, but that Section provided that where an existing street appeared to be developing into a new street because of building operations, then the local authority could make an order for the purpose of the byelaws that it should be a new street, and when under Section 30 of the 1925 Act an order was made, immediately a frontager began to build on the adjoining land then he was deemed to be laying out a new street within the meaning of the byelaws.
Of course the byelaws may differ from local authority to local authority but normally, I presume, most local authorities have the model byelaws. When one refers to those as to the layout of a new street, there are certain provisions about the width that a new street must be compared with its length and so on. In other words, there are certain maximum and minimum widths for the street. Generally speaking, I find the model byelaws quite unintelligible when applied to the widening of an existing street. They apply to the laying out of a new street, and when one tries to apply either Section 30 of the 1925 Act or Clause 159 of the Bill, they are unintelligible as applied to those provisions.
I agree, from that point of view, that Section 30 of the 1925 Act needed amendment, but when we come to see how Section 159 has amended the law, we find that what it has done is to give the local authority power to decide that because certain developments are taking place in the neighbourhood of a highway, that highway is becoming a new street. On the decision of the local authority, it can be declared to be a new street, although it is an existing highway, and the width of it is laid down as being the minimum width under the relevant bye-laws. Again I find it impossible to construe that and find out what is the minimum width under the relevant byelaws. Nevertheless there it is in the Section.
When the local authority has laid down this width, the result of any frontager starting to develop—starting any building on the land adjoining—is that the appropriate portion of the land—that is the new part for widening—becomes part of the highway and the owner of that portion is obliged to remove any boundary fence or other obstruction situated thereon and bring the level thereof into conformity with that of the existing highway. This is quite new. It was not in Section 30. The result is that the frontager loses his land. He is required to level that part which the local authority has determined shall be thrown into the road for widening, into conformity with the existing highway. Then, although it becomes part of the existing highway, under the proviso it is not maintainable at the public expense, and for that reason the frontager may have to pay road charges as well.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does not the hon. Gentleman think this is a matter which he could well pursue on the Adjournment Motion later this evening?

Mr. Page: I said earlier, when the hon. Gentleman was not here, that this was "gag" day. We have been gagged on every Bill so far, and the hon. Gentleman now wants to gag me on a vital Amendment to a Bill introducing legislation which is confiscating private property without compensation. It is a matter which should be raised on this Bill even though it is said to be a consolidation Measure. Although I have not the slightest hope of my hon. Friend accepting my Amendment at this stage, I again say that I am laying a claim to moving an Amendment in an amending Bill as soon as possible.

9.30 p.m

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), in the debate on Second Reading, drew attention to this point, and said, perfectly correctly, that what is proposed here in the Bill is an alteration in the law. He rather suggested in the observations he has just made that the Reading Committee rather under-estimated in its Report the extent of the change which it recommended, for, in fact, as will be found on page 123 of the Report in the paragraph dealing with the Clause which was then Clause 158,

it referred to the fairly extensive modifications in the draft.
The raison d'etre for this change was the unsatisfactory position arising under Section 30 of the 1925 Act. That Act provided, as the Committee will remember:
Where it appears to the local authority that the whole or any portion of an existing highway will be converted into a new street as a consequence of building operations…the local authority may by order declare such highway…to be a new street.
That Section of the 1925 Act made provision for the posting of notices, and provided that, after an order had been made,
…any person erecting a new building upon land abutting on or adjoining the highway…shall…be deemed to be laying out a new street within the meaning of the byelaws of the local authority…or of any provision in a local Act with respect to the width of new streets.
I think that the hon. Member for Crosby conceded, as I understood him, that this was a very unsatisfactory Section, because when we come to the point of discovering what is to be the position of a frontager who is building on land which it is desired to constitute a highway or be a new street, one has to have recourse to complex byelaws, and, at best, to a very complex model byelaw.
What was in the mind of the Reading Committee, if I might speak for it on this occasion and in this respect, so far as I can do so, was, I think, that it was very desirable that the opportunity should be taken to try to clear up what was the considerably inconvenient confusion in the treatment of this matter. It is, of course, for this Committee to form its own impression of the merits or demerits of the proposal that we made, and which the Government have adopted in this Clause. I would only point out two matters arising in this connection.
First, and I dare say that the hon. Member for Crosby will agree with this, the procedure proposed in Clause 159 has the advantage, I suggest to him and to the Committee, of relative simplicity and clarity, compared with the old provisions in the Public Health Act, 1925. The second and rather important point that I would draw to the attention of the Committee in this connection is that any proceedings or any action affecting the frontager in the taking of land without compensation, in the passage in this Clause


to which the hon. Member has objected, only arises in the context of two quite distinct matters.
There must appear to the appropriate council that an existing highway will be converted into a new street as a consequence of building operations. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will appreciate that that at once narrows very much the effect of this Clause and the field of operations to which it will have relevance. There have to be, to the knowledge of the appropriate council, building operations commencing or proposed to be commenced which will have the effect of converting a highway into a new street. Then, additionally to that, before the order is made, a notice giving the effect of the intended order has to be displayed.
What does it mean? It means that any frontager who is to be affected, as I understand it, in the way which the hon. Member for Crosby regards as an unjust fashion, will be taking action which he knows perfectly well is in contravention of the order which has been notified and displayed. He is going to behave on any showing in a somewhat anti-social and anti-civic fashion. We know, and I say this without any disrespect, that the hon. Member for Crosby and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) both feel sympathy far the owners of land which is subject to compulsory acquisition.
I have had occasion upstairs in Committee to hear something of their representations on that point. I invite them to recognise that in this context the frontager or the owner of an interest in land to whose rescue they are coming is, ex hvpothesi, behaving in a somewhat unreasonable fashion by continuing with building operations on land which the local authority has determined shall be converted into a new street, and in respect of which that owner will have received reasonable intimation by way of statutory notice.

Mr. Page: I am not complaining about the prevention of building on the part to be reserved for widening. I am complaining about the taking away of land by subsection (6) without compensation, and also about placing a charge on the owner to level it out in conformity with the rest of the street, and making him pay street charges.

Mr. Irvine: I appreciate that, but the fact remains that the developer will have received statutory notices which make it abundantly clear what will be the consequences of certain actions. As I understand, the hon. Member for Crosby seeks to come to the rescue of a frontager who has taken action of a kind adumbrated by the notice, knowing what will be the consequences of his action.
The proposal contained in the Clause is a simplification of and an improvement in the law. Further, although it may involve the owner of an interest in the deprivation of his land without compensation, it involves him only to the extent that he has taken steps which previous statutory notices have made it abundantly clear to him he would be very ill-advised to take.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I do not necessarily go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in this matter. My main objection to the Clause is that it substantiaily alters the law, and I should have thought that the only justification for adopting this procedure, which has not been very enlightening so far, was that this is a consolidation Measure which does not materially alter the law.
As the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said, it is no doubt true that the original Section 30, subsection (4) of which was the basis for the subsection that we are now considering, was ambiguous and in many ways thoroughly unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, it has been on the Statute Book for about thirty-five years, and has had a definite meaning ascribed to it. It may be of interest if I read to hon. Members two short extracts from Pratt and Mackenzie's Law of Highways. Referring to the person who builds up to the building line, on page 502 we read:
He may or may not, at the time of setting back his fence to conform to the byelaw width of the street, dedicate to the public the strip between the fence in its old position and its new position and if he has dedicated it there may not he acceptance by the public. There is no compulsion to dedicate. If it has not been dedicated and accepted then he may continue in ownership and exercise rights of ownership over the strip and may later re-enclose the strip without committing an offence against the byelaws.
On the following page it says:
If on building the fence is set back and the strip is not re-enclosed but there is no dedication or acceptance, the authority may


make up the strip as part of the street with the same consequences as if it had been voluntarily added and dedicated and accepted but subject to the payment of compensation…If on building the fence is set back but there is no dedication and acceptance and the strip is subsequently re-enclosed then of course the highway authority must purchase the strip to be added and if they do, the strips will partake of the nature of that to which they are added…
There is no option as to dedication in the present Clause, and no question of compensation arises in any circumstances. There is an automatic obligation to make a contribution to make up the street when that eventuality arises. I should have thought that that provision went a long way beyond the law which we are supposed to be consolidating. I hope that my hon. Friend will examine this point seriously. Even if the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill is valid—and I do not necessarily dispute it—this alteration is a far greater one than those which my hon. Friend has been refusing to make in connection with the Amendments moved by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. It is absurd to be told that this alteration is quite in order, although it is quite a big advance on the existing law, and, at the same time, to be told that other Amendments cannot be accepted because the Bill is an agreed Measure and cannot be altered. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into the matter.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: This is the climax of the absurd position which we have had to occupy this evening. This Clause is an enactment in new form of one of the most complicated sections of the law dealing with the very difficult subject of private street works. It means that a number of small people who happen to be frontagers on a road, or owners of land which may be adopted to go into an old road as a new street, have to face the complications described by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Even when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) was describing what would happen, it still seemed to me a very complicated procedure for the kind of people to whom I have alluded to have to cope with.
Anyone who has been connected with local government knows the problems

which constantly arise involving small people in the complicated mechanism of private street works legislation. This is an attempt to deal in a consolidation Measure with a subject—which would not be regarded by many people as germane to the general subject of this Bill—in a form which sounded terrifying when the hon. Member for Crosby was trying—and succeeding—in making it sound difficult. Even when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill gave his lucid explanation I thought that it remained something quite beyond the comprehension of many of the people who will be involved in these transactions.
To put a Clause like this into the Bill is an abuse of consolidation procedure. I hope that as a result of passing this Measure we shall get a codification of private street works legislation, and all the things which spring from it, in a separate Measure in which the procedure now being enacted will be considerably simplified. It is not enough to say that people are given notice about this kind of thing. Of course they receive notices and then, if they have the means to do so, the proper action for them to take is to instruct their solicitor to take the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill on the validity of the notice and whether there is some way to get round it. They should then go to a surveyor and get him to make a proper estimate of the cost of the work. But a great many people who become involved in these difficulties do not employ a solicitor, or if they do, they cannot afford to take counsel's opinion, and they do not employ a surveyor.
Many of these proceedings are carried out after a notice has been affixed on a post which is placed on the land, because at the time the notice ought to be given the person concerned cannot be traced. To add to the known difficulties the complications and the alterations which it is proposed to introduce in a consolidation Measure is an abuse by the Government of the powers they are asking this Committee to give them.

Mr. Page: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has mentioned notices which he said are served on people to give them warning. In fact, the notices are not served on anybody, they are posted up at the end of the street—

Mr. Ede: That is what I said.

Mr. Page: But they are not served on the people to give them the necessary warning. They are displayed along with other notices; and who will read such a notice among such notices as those announcing that a fine of 40s. will be imposed on the owner of a dog which fouls the pavement? All these notices may appear on the same lamp post.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members realise what they are doing by including Clause 159 in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) read from the textbook on the subject that under the present law this sort of practice cannot be carried out without the payment of compensation. Under Clause 159 of this Bill it can be done without the payment of compensation. That is what is being done under the guise of a consolidation Bill.

Mr. Ede: The notices are placed at each end of the street on the assumption that the frontagers will read them. But the people concerned may not go down that street while the notice is displayed. That may not have been there for thirty years. They may live a long way away. This is a terrible abuse of the power of the Government.

Mr. Nugent: I must apologise for imposing on the Committee the burden of considering this complicated and difficult Measure this evening. I think that the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who was a member of the expert Committee, helped my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) to understand what the Reading Committee was recommending in redrafting the Measure in this way.
It is relevant to recall, I think, that the Reading Committee realised that it was dealing with something extremely difficult here. I do not for a moment disagree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he says that private streets works legislation is most complicated and very often affects small people. Indeed, from time to time, they come to their Members of Parliament and ask us to unravel their problems for them. We should all readily agree that a codification and simplification of the law in this respect is desirable, but those are matters of substance which cannot be dealt with here.
The Reading Committee, realising that it had something of great difficulty to deal with, set up a special sub-committee of impressive constitution to make a special examination of the law on these matters in order to try to simplify it and assist the many people affected by it. The Clauses which we have before us now are the result of that simplification.
I must rely upon the Report of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses which stated that the changes made are not of substance. They can, therefore, be accepted by the Committee tonight. In its Report, the Select Committee said that the changes made
were not of such importance that they ought to be separately enacted".
I call those words of the Select Committee to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) in their anxiety on these matters. We have the assurance of that authoritative body that we are not making here substantial changes in the law of such importance that they ought to be separately enacted.
I feel that the assurance of the expert Reading Committee and the, perhaps, even more authoritative assurance of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses throws upon this very difficult problem a light different from that which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby sought to direct upon it. I do not deny that the law in this respect is complex and unsatisfactory and will, no doubt, have to be changed. Nor do I deny that the consequences referred to by my hon. Friend may occur. The obligation may fall upon the landowner not only to give up his land but to be responsible for maintaining the road afterwards.
As I understand it, I follow the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill in saying that the main use of the Clause is in connection with development. I think that that puts it in a different light. Rather than argue the intrinsic merits of it, which are complicated and difficult to adduce, I rely upon the independent and authoritative Report of the Joint Select Committee, which said that the changes made here are not of such substance that they should be separately enacted. On those grounds I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Page: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 160 to 209 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 210.—(CONTRIBUTION BY STREET WORKS AUTHORITY TO EXPENSES OF STREET WORKS.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 162, line 32, at the end to add:
(2) Without prejudice to their powers under the foregoing subsection, a street works authority may at any time resolve to bear the whole or a portion of the expenses of any street works in their area under the code of 1892 or the code of 1875 or under a provision in a local Act relating to such works, being expenses which would otherwise be apportioned on, or to the owner of, any premises of which only the rear or a flank fronts the street, and where an authority so resolve the liability of the owner of those premises in respect of those expenses shall be treated as discharged or reduced accordingly.
This is a Privilege Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 211 to 253 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 254.—(POWERS OF ENTRY FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH PROVI SION OF SPECIAL ROADS AND TRUNK ROADS.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 195, line 12, at the end to insert:
(3) A person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable in respect thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(4) If a person who, in compliance with the provisions of this section, is admitted into a factory, workshop or workplace discloses to any person any information obtained by him therein as to any manufacturing process or trade secret, then, unless the disclosure is made in the course of performing his duty in connection with the purposes for which he was authorised to enter the land he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable in respect thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
This is a Privilege Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 255 to 299 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 300.—(SAVING FOR POSTMASTER- GENERAL.)

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 228, line 9, at the end to insert:
(c) the Postmaster-General shall be entitled to recover from the said authority the expense of providing, in substitution for the affected line and any telegraphic line connected therewith which is rendered useless in consequence of the removal or abandonment of the affected line, a telegraphic line in such other place as he may require;
This is a Privilege Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 301 to 313 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(VARIATION OF WIDTHS OF CARRIAGEWAYS AND FOOTWAYS.)

(1) Where a highway maintainable at the public expense comprises both a footway or footways and a carriageway, the appropriate authority may vary the relative widths of the carriageway and of any footway.
(2) Not less than twenty-one days before commencing any work under this section which will materially reduce the width of the carriageway or a footway of a classified road the authority shall give notice of the proposed works to the Minister.
(3) Where any part of a highway is carried by a bridge over a railway, canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour or forms the approaches to such a bridge, the powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised in relation to that part without the consent of the railway, canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour undertakers concerned
A consent required by this subsection shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question arising under this subsection whether the withholding of a consent is unreasonable shall be determined by the Minister.
(4) In this section "the appropriate authority" means, in relation to a highway in a rural district, the council of the county in which the highway is situated, and, in relation to a highway in a borough or urban district, the council of the borough or district, as the case may be:
Provided that a council shall not exercise a power conferred by subsection (1) of this section in relation to a highway for which they are not the highway authority without the consent of the highway authority therefor.—[Mr. Nugent.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This, and the following two Clauses, also contain financial implications and are, therefore, Clauses involving Privilege.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(ALTERATION OF LEVELS.)

(1) Without prejudice to their powers under the last foregoing section, a highway authority may raise or lower or otherwise alter, as they think fit, the level of a highway maintainable at the public expense by them.
(2) A highway authority shall pay compensation to any person who has sustained damage by reason of the execution by them of works under this section.—[Mr. Nugent.]
Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PENALTY FOR PLACING ROPE, ETC., ACROSS HIGHWAY.)

A person who for any purpose places any rope, wire or other apparatus across a highway in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the highway shall, unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, be guilty of an offence, in respect of which he shall be liable, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and, in the case of any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.—[Mr. Nugent.]
Brought up and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 11 agreed to.

Schedule 12.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS UNDER SECTION 108 OF THIS ACT.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 255, line 28, to leave out "four" and insert "two".
The Parliamentary Secretary has a last expiring opportunity of showing just that very little degree of independence necessary to accept this excessively modest proposal. I am heartened by the fact that I may even have the good will to some extent of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I noted in examining the report of the Reading Committee that it did not regard this as outside its proper consideration. It merely decided that it did not think that it was necessary.
I think that this Committee has the right to take its own view. This is dealing only with the form of publication of the closure or diversion of highways. My proposals are twofold, first that the publication should not be so onerous as to

require publication in four successive issues of local papers if at the same time notification can be made in the London Gazette, as is done with—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I take it that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East is discussing both Amendments together?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, that is what I am doing. Provided that there is publication in the London Gazette, it is not necessary to have as many as four successive publications in the local Press, though it is a matter for the Committee whether that should be required.
I emphasise that it is not enough in these days to make provision for purely local publication. As I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware, there are many bodies, with considerable membership on a national basis, which take an interest in these matters. They cannot possibly be expected to read through all the local publications which there are throughout the country. Their only chance of taking note of proposals for the closure or diversion of a highway will be if it is published in a central organ such as the one proposed in my second Amendment.
This is common form in other respects. There does not seem to be any reason why it should be rejected. It cannot be regarded by the greatest stretch of imagination as an Amendment of substance. It can certainly provide valuable further notification to those very important voluntary bodies which set themselves out to try to keep in tounch with such matters.
We welcome and admire the amount of voluntary work done by central organisations such as the Commons, Open Spaces, and Footpaths Preservation Society and the Ramblers' Association. There are many other bodies who go to a good deal of trouble to look after footpaths and bridle ways, and it is anomalous that they are denied the opportunity of doing so in this regard.
10.0 p.m.
It is even more anomalous when one looks at some of the other provisions in the Bill. In the Seventh Schedule there are provisions for publication in the London Gazette. All that is being asked is that a procedure should be followed


in this respect, as is provided for in the Seventh Schedule. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that this will be appreciated by a considerable number of the members of voluntary organisations who are doing their best to try to preserve rights of ways, because "highways" include drove roads and many different types of roads.
I assure the Parliamentary Secretary, if I could have his attention in these expiring few moments of the time available, that it would give Members on all sides the greatest satisfaction if, in this very minute degree, he would be prepared to accept these Amendments. I cannot see how anybody could in the slightest degree be disturbed if these Amendments were made. I can assure him that a number of people would be grateful to him if it were done.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Perhaps I could put in a word of support for my hon. Friend's Amendment. We are dealing with a matter which is, on any showing, within the narrow terms of reference of the Committee. As such, it is not open to the objection which the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated stands in the way of other Amendments which has been put forward which are not consistent with the fundamental consultative character of the Bill.
This point was not considered by the Committee. If it had been nobody would have taken the objection that it would make a substantial change in the law. It would have been rightly regarded as being well within the terms of reference. My hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the circumstance that the national bodies play a great part in English life in watching over the preservation of rights of way on footpaths and highways. These are national bodies of great repute and considerable importance and they cannot be expected to look in all the local newspapers. Their efforts would be very much assisted if this type of entry were made in the London Gazette.
My hon. Friend in his other Amendment indicates that if that concession were made and notices were published in the London Gazette, so far as he and people of his outlook are concerned it would be sufficient if the notices in the local papers were made on fewer than four occasions,

and that two occasions would be sufficient.
My hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the Committee considerations and factors which have not been present before. He has brought forward an argument which appears to many of us to be a valid one on a point clearly within the terms of reference of the Committee and I should have thought it appropriate to consider seriously the acceptance of the Amendment or, at least, to indicate a readiness to consider it and have the matter referred to again on Report.

Mr. Nugent: I have listened with care to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I confess that I had been persuaded by the argument set out in paragraph 77 of the Report of the Reading Committee, who, although the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill may not remember it, considered this point and concluded that the existing provision for public notice of these applications was sufficient. I had thought that that was probably the best view.
This is not, however a change of substance and, therefore, does not stand in the same light as the other Amendments which have been put to me tonight. I accept that the merits of the argument are good, that there are national associations who give their public service as guardians in these matters and that they may well miss notices in local papers. To change the law from four notices in local papers to two in local papers and in the London Gazette is such a small change that we might say, in the same spirit as the traditional story, that it is only a little one and, therefore, will pass notice.
I am fortified in that by having the backing of the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill, who was a member of the Reading Committee. I cannot help thinking that if the question had come up in the Joint Select Committee, it would probably have been recommended there as a trifling change to which no one would have objected.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, that the matter was considered by the Reading Committee; I did not desire to suggest anything to the contrary. My recollection,


however, is that the vital point that the interests of the national associations concerned in this matter would be better served by publication in the London Gazette was not brought to our attention.

Mr. Nugent: That is the vital point and I regard it as a good one. At least, it is a great pleasure for me tonight to be able to say, "Yes" for once, even if this is the final Amendment from the Opposition. Therefore, I shall be glad to accept the Amendment and I advise the Committee to do so.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of what I have said before, I should like merely to say how grateful I am for this last minute repentance and expression of good will. I am grateful for the support of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 255, line 29, after "publish", insert "in the London Gazette and."—[Mr. Blenkinsop]
In page 256, line 10, at end insert:
6. Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, the authority on whose application an order under the said section one hundred and eight stopping up or diverting a highway was made shall pay to any statutory undertakers an amount equal to the cost reasonably incurred by them in or in connection with—

(a) the execution of undertakers' works required in consequence of the stopping up or diversion of that highway, and
(b) the doing of any other work or thing rendered necessary by the execution of undertakers' works.



7. If in the course of the execution of undertakers' works under paragraph 5 of this Schedule—

(a) apparatus of better type, of greater dimensions or of greater capacity is placed in substitution for existing apparatus of wores type, of smaller dimensions or of smaller capacity, or
(b) apparatus (whether existing apparatus or apparatus substituted for existing apparatus) is placed at a depth greater than the depth at which the existing apparatus was,

and the placing of apparatus of that type, dimensions or capacity or the placing of apparatus at that depth, as the case may be, is not agreed by the authority concerned, or, in default of agreement, is not determined by arbitration to be necessary, then, if it involves cost in the execution of the undertakers' works exceeding that which would have been involved if the apparatus placed had been of the existing type, dimensions or capacity, or at the existing depth, as the case may be, the amount which apart from this paragraph

would be payable to the undertakers by virtue of the last foregoing paragraph shall be reduced by the amount of that excess.—[Mr. Nugent.]
In page 256, line 46, at end insert:
9. An amount which apart from this paragraph would be payable to undertakers in respect of works of theirs by virtue of paragraph 6 of this Schedule (and having regard, where relevant, to paragraph 7 of this Schedule) shall, if the works include the placing of apparatus provided in substitution for apparatus placed more than seven-and-a-half years earlier so as to confer on the undertakers any financial benefit by deferment of the time for renewal of the apparatus in the ordinary course, be reduced by the amount which represents that benefit.—[Mr. Nugent.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 13 to 26 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE WORKS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: We accept the principles involved in the Bill, but there are one or two questions I should like to ask, chiefly concerning the nature of the works which have been taken over. From the Bill, I understand that they are for the underground railway, for the extension of which in London there has been previous legislation. The Bill refers, however, to works in Birmingham and Manchester. The House would like to know the nature of the works which are to be taken over.
The other point on which I should like information is why the Bill contains a Clause concerning the Prudential Assurance Company. Is it because, as a result of previous legislation, there were special agreements in law with this company?

10.11 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): The Bill relates not to the underground railway of the Post Office, with which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) is familiar, but to underground works that were acquired under Defence Regulations for the communication purposes of the


Post Office. I think that if the hon. Gentleman will read references in the Bill in the light of my remarks, they will be perfectly clear. I hope that the House will accept my remarks in that way.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the saving Clause for the Prudential Company. That arose because of the special interests that the company has. Those interests were brought out during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, and we thought it right to accede to the request for this Clause since, in point of fact, most of what was required had already been done. I believe that the Bill in its present form is satisfactory, not only to my right hon. Friend and to the Post Office but to all the various interests concerned in these separate works.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection:
Any Petitions against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the seventh day after this day in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such petition is presented, or if all such petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Standing Committee:
Any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the prayer of his Petition, to be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents, upon his Petition provided that such Petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill to be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against such Petition:
Power to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence:
Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Marples.]

POST OFFICE WORKS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to vest in the Postmaster-General certain underground works constructed in London, Manchester and Birmingham in the exercise of emergency powers, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(a) any expenses incurred by virtue of the said Act by the Postmaster-General; and
(b) any expenses incurred in maintaining the works referred to in the said Act as "the London works", "the Manchester works" and "the Birmingham works".— [Mr. Simon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PURCHASE TAX (TELEVISION SETS)

Motion made and Question proposed,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 641), dated 7th April, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be approved.—[Mr. Simon.]

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Does not the Financial Secretary intend to explain this jargon? A few moments ago I was handed this small chore, and was rather anxious to know what it was all about. The hon. and learned Gentleman has some papers there—he is obviously briefed. He is not a lazy man, so may I ask him just to enlighten the House? I rather think that we approve of this Order. I fancy that it is something that we asked the Government to do twelve months ago. They would not do so then, and we are naturally pleased that they are prepared to do so now, but would the Financial Secretary please enlighten us?

10.17 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I naturally respond gladly to the invitation of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), even though his object may be to prevent me from becoming lazy. It is


perfectly true that this Order is consequential on the exemption in the Budget of television tubes from Purchase Tax. The hon. Member will know, I think, that the tube in a television set is a very valuable part of it, and is easily removable.
The tax on the tube, which brought in, he will remember,£1½ million a year, was imposed for two reasons. The first was the revenue produced, which was the reason why my right hon. Friend did not find it possible twelve months ago to respond to the plea for its abolition of the tax. Secondly, the tax acted as a deterrent to anybody who might choose to remove the tube from the set, sell the set at a lower value, subject to the appropriate Purchase Tax, but sell the tube tax-free separately, after which anybody could fairly easily fit the two together. In other words, it was a protection to the Revenue.
It was represented to my right hon. Friend by a deputation from the industry, which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary received, that there was an alternative way of safeguarding the Revenue if my right hon. Friend found it possible to forgo the Revenue from the tax. What this Order does is to adopt an alternative method for protecting the Revenue, and preventing abuse by selling the set and the tube separately.
That is not a device that appeals to the radio industry generally and, as I say, it was the industry itself that suggested this alternative method, which simply lays down that any television set that lacks a cathode ray tube at the time that the tax becomes chargeable will nevertheless be valued for tax purposes as if the appropriate tube was there. In other words, the Order blocks a loophole, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COUNCIL HOUSES (ALLOCATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the various methods adopted by local authorities in dealing with applications for tenancies of council houses and with the selection of tenants for available houses. I want to condemn the present accepted practice and to propose something which, I think, would be more fair and just to those who apply for houses available for letting by local authorities.
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has from time to time issued on this subject very useful reports of the Housing Management Sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee within the conception of the present function of local authorities in letting their houses. In my view, that conception is wholly wrong under modern conditions. To hundreds of thousands of families, the allocation of a council house is the most important and vital thing in their lives, but the decision on it is made, as it were, behind locked doors without the applicant being heard in his own cause, without his hearing the case against his application if it is refused, and, indeed, without being given the reasons for the decision which is reached.
The selection of applicants to whom an offer of accommodation is to be made should be not merely an administrative function of the local authority, but something in the nature of a quasi-judicial function. This is not such an extraordinary plea as it may at first sound, because it does not involve a very great change of the mental attitude of many councils towards this particular function of local government. Many councils have unconsciously thought of it as a form of judicial function by declaring that they will decide the applications for local authority houses upon a points system. Indeed, many local authorities apply such a system. But they stop short of deciding the matter on anything other than a purely administrative and secret basis—secret from the applicant's point of view.
This function of selection of tenants is distinct from the normal functions of local government. Normal local government decisions affect the whole body of ratepayers or citizens of the district, but in allocating a house local authorities decide for or against an individual. In other matters in which the local authority has to make a decision relating to an individual, such as in town planning or compulsory purchase, there is always provided a process of appeal to something in the nature of a judicial body, but that is not so in housing or in the allocation of local authority houses.
What normally happens, first, is that, a person applies for a council house. He goes to the housing department of the council and sees a junior clerk behind the counter. In very many cases, the applicant may be living in hopeless conditions —perhaps a husband, wife and several children in one room. His means may be quite insufficient to enable him to obtain accommodation other than that which is subsidised by the central and local government. The hardship of his existing conditions and the possibility of relief from them by his being granted local authority accommodation looms as the great and primary thought in the mind of himself and his family.
The applicant therefore goes to the housing department, where he is handed a form and told to fill in the answers. He may or may not be told what sort of circumstances will score points for him under the points system which the council may operate. When he has completed the form, he may or may not be told how many points he has been allocated. He may or may not be told whether that places him on the waiting list and what prospects there are of his ever obtaining accommodation. He may or may not be told if he has been placed on the list at all.
I recollect a case which came before me in which a man and woman with five children, living in overcrowded conditions, were not placed on the waiting list merely because they were not married. There were already five children of the union and they were living in overcrowded conditions, but they were never told that they were not even put on the waiting list. Perhaps an applicant makes an ambiguous statement on the form. He


may or may not be told that that statement has been construed against him and he has lost some points as a result. He may or may not be given a chance to explain what he meant by the statement.
The applicant may receive a visit some time later from a representative of the housing department. The visitor, who is seldom welfare-trained, may observe something in the house, such as that the applicant is sharing the house or living in the same house as relatives, and thus knocks a few points off the application. I recollect a case in which a visitor, noticing that the other occupants of the house were relatives, adopted the course of knocking several points off without finding out that there had been an assault case between the relatives and that there was no chance of them sharing the house. The applicant was confined to one room. Because that member of the housing department had taken that action without any mention of it to the applicant, the applicant was unable to put his case in answer.
If the applicant ever reaches the top of the list for houses he will probably have an equal number of points with several other applicants. Those selected may depend upon the decision of the housing manager, or a committee or sub-committee of the council. The rejected applicants will not know why they have been rejected. I recollect a case in which a married couple with two young children were rejected merely because both were under 21 years of age and, according to the committee which decided it, could not legally be granted a tenancy. Had they been told, I know that the parents would have guaranteed the tenancy so that there was no question that it could have been granted to those young people, but they were not told that they had not been selected and, therefore, could not put a case in answer.
If a man is sued or sues for a debt of a few shillings, all the elaborate machinery of British justice is set in motion. Justice is not only done, but it is seen to be done. If a man parks a car and obstructs the highway, all the elaborate process of British justice is set in motion for the sake perhaps of a 20s. fine. If a tenant of furnished premises thinks he is paying too much, he can go to a tribunal for a proper hearing of his claim and impartial judgment. There are many instances of ex-

treme triviality as compared with the provision of a house where every effort is made to provide an independent tribunal or court and a fair and just hearing. I ask that the same should be done for the applicant for a council house. This needs no legislation. Local authorities can provide the tribunals to take over the making of decisions and the selection of tenants.
Let me tabulate what I think ought to be done. First, every local authority should have, and should publish, a points system. Secondly, to avoid some of the local whims which occur in some local authorities' points systems, it should be a requirement that every such system should be approved by the Minister. Thirdly, when an application is made to the housing manager or the other appropriate official, the allocation of the number of points to the applicant should be notified to the applicant so that he knows exactly where he stands. The applicant should have a right of appeal from that decision to the sort of tribunal which I will mention in a minute.
Then the council should have exhibited, or made available for inspection, a list of applicants set out in order of priority in accordance with the points allotted to each. If at any time the number of council houses available for letting is less than the number of applicants with the highest points, the tribunal should make the selection of applicants who are to be offered accommodation. For that purpose each applicant should be permitted to state his case to the tribunal in person or in writing, as he may choose.
I can see no reason why any such hearing should be in secret. It is said sometimes that applicants do not wish to disclose their circumstances in public. Frankly, I do not believe that anyone seeking a council house minds anybody knowing why he is making that application. The present secrecy in decisions upon the allocation of council houses leads to allegations of favouritism and worse against housing managers and housing committees.
As to the composition of such a tribunal, I see no reason why councillors themselves should not undertake the work, provided that they are not members of any housing or estate management committee of the council. I have in mind the sort of appeal committees which are


set up, for example, in hospital management, to which an employee can appeal against the grade of employment in which he is placed. Such appeal committees consist of a few governors or members of the management committee of the hospital and they decide in an impartial manner the application which comes before them.
It may be argued as against this sort of system of decision by a tribunal that the local authority must have the right to reject applications from tenants whom they consider to be unsuitable; that local authorities, unless they are given freedom of administrative action, will find themselves saddled with the problem families of the district. I can only reject that sort of argument. I think that it is entirely wrong for local authorities to make their selection of tenants upon anything other than housing needs. If, on that basis, they find that they are landed with problem families, the answer is that there should be more trained welfare officers among the personnel of the housing department. I do not think that nearly enough local authorities appreciate the welfare problems concerned in housing, in the selection of tenants and in their estate management functions. However, perhaps that is rather a wider point.
There are two reasons why I think that the selection on the basis of personal suitability of a tenant is wholly unfair and unsatisfactory. The first reason is that suitability is now decided simply upon the word of the council's official, sometimes based on a report from a junior employee who has visited the applicant and who has no welfare knowledge, and the applicant is given no chance to hear the sort of case which is made against him on the ground that he is personally unsuitable.
Secondly, a very great part of the future allocation of council houses is to be for those moving from slum-clearance areas, and the local authorities cannot be allowed to pick and choose between them. I know of local authorities which now do so. If those who are being removed from the slums need accommodation, and if accommodation is available, it should be allocated to them.
To sum up my proposal, it is that the allocation of council houses should be done, and should be seen to be done, as openly and as impartially as any action

in the courts, and that at every stage the applicant should know the case against him and have the opportunity of answering it fully.

10.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that it is of great importance that the selection of council tenants should be as fair as it can possibly be made. I think, and so does my right hon. Friend, that, on the whole, it is a fair system. But, of course, it is not altogether unnatural that people who are badly housed should regard the system of selection as rather less than fair if they themselves are not selected for a council house.
A great deal of guidance, as my hon. Friend knows, has been given to local authorities about the selection of tenants, and, in the main, this is based on two principles. The first is that local authorities should work towards the removal of qualifications which prevent people getting their names on the lists. The second is that the all-important consideration should be to see that houses are allocated to those families who possess the greatest housing need.
In the view of my right hon. Friend it would be quite wrong if Whitehall were to dictate a rigid pattern of administration to the local authorities. That would run completely contrary to the whole spirit and, indeed, the tradition of housing administration by local authorities. The responsibility for managing these houses rests, and should continue to rest, firmly on the shoulders of the local authorities. After all, they are financialy responsible for the houses and for their upkeep.
I am sure that it would be generally resented if my right hon. Friend were to attempt to lay down a hard and fast system and then seek to fasten it upon local government. If I may say so with respect to my hon. Friend, I think that there are a number of rather wide considerations to which he may not, perhaps, have given quite sufficient cognisance. For one thing, the size of the problem varies enormously from one area to another, and so, too, of course, do local conditions.
In some small localities, for example, it may be possible for the housing committee or its chairman to deal with all


the selections, but in our big cities that would be quite impracticable and there may well need to be some measure of delegation by the council and the housing committee to the permanent officials; delegation, of course, within the framework of principles defined by the housing committee, leaving marginal cases or cases of exceptional difficulty to go before the housing committee or one of its sub-committees.
Again, in the case of, say, a large expanding industrial area, where pressure for housing is greater than it is throughout the rest of the country, any system is bound, in the nature of things, to be more selective than in a country town where the population is static and the supply of houses is more or less in balance with demand.
But I should like to say a few words about the specific suggestions mentioned by my hon. Friend. First, there was the idea that all authorities should operate a points system. I believe that it is true that the majority do so at present. But the weighting which they give for the various factors that determine the applicant's need is bound to be influenced by their knowledge of local conditions. I see nothing inherently wrong in this. I take leave to doubt whether any Minister of Housing and Local Government would ever care to assume the responsibility of approving or disapproving the points system of any local authority, because he lacks the local knowledge that would enable him to come to a sensible decision.
Next, my hon. Friend suggests that applicants should be told about their pointing. As he knows, the practice varies. Many local authorities are anxious that there should be complete public confidence in their administration and they go to considerable lengths to tell applicants how they stand. I believe that this is right, and so, I think, does my hon. Friend, but there are other local authorities who are very chary about giving exact information to their applicants. This is sometimes due to a desire to avoid comparison with the situation of other applicants, whose personal circumstances the local authority is anxious not to disclose, and a local authority must be careful to respect the confidence of people on its list in the matter of such things as their health and financial circumstances. This, my

right hon. Friend thinks, is best dealt with at the discretion of the local council.
Then there is the suggestion that a list of applicants in order of priority ought to be made public. I agree that in some localities this might well be feasible, though my hon. Friend will realise that priorities vary from time to time and applicants are liable to be displeased if they see that their position on the list has gone down whereas that of a neighbouring family has gone up. In the case of large towns and cities I am sure that this would not be a practical exercise. In large cities like Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool, with waiting lists of 20,000 or more applicants, the pointings and priorities vary from time to time according to the birth of a child, or the marriage of a daughter which might affect the question of overcrowding or the splitting of a family because of domestic circumstances. It is difficult enough to maintain this internal information with accuracy in the case of the larger authorities, without having to make it public into the bargain.
Finally, my hon. Friend suggested that all applicants, except those in the higher reaches of the list, who cannot hope to be satisfied over a period of time, should be heard by a local tribunal. I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's desire to see that we achieve the greatest possible measure of impartiality by the local councils, but my right hon. Friend has no reason to doubt that generally the local authorities are discharging this difficult task with responsibility and impartiality. I think that there is general confidence that they are doing so. In any case, I am afraid that a system such as my hon. Friend suggests would tend to detract from the objectivity and impartiality of the present system of allocation, because some applicants might appeal to the tribunal's compassion while others, whose intrinsic need might be greater, might fail to impress the tribunal. I am far from suggesting that cases do not arise which call for consideration owing to special circumstances. However, most local authorities, in my experience, have special machinery to deal speedily with cases of this kind.
What I do think is most important, of course, is that local housing authorities should make absolutely clear to the general public and to people who are in search of council houses just what their


policy of selection is by means of public announcements, Press announcements, leaflets, and that kind of thing. It is only if the general public understands the basis of selection that it can have real confidence that the system is being operated fairly.
I would repeat that by tradition and custom it has always been a matter for local authorities themselves to decide how

they shall best work their system of selection, and in the view of my right hon. Friend, although we shall, of course, study what has been said by my hon. Friend, it would not be right at this stage to adopt a different system.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.